The election is 4 days away. Have you decided who you're voting for? It honestly baffles me that people could still be undecided with 2 very different candidates to choose from.
So let's see how LP would vote if we had a voice. This means EVERYONE, even if you don't live in the USA. If you're undecided I'm dead curious as to why, so please post a reply along with your vote =)
EDIT: I didn't add Nadar/Paul/Barr and the other candidates cause I am curious how people would vote if they were forced to choose btwn these 2.
Poll: Who will you vote for President of the USA?
(Vote): John McCain
(Vote): Barack Obama
(Vote): Undecided
I'm voting for Obama, but I'm also LOLing at the whole "Palin gone Rogue" thing haha.
Sorry dude he Jason Bourned me. -Johnny Drama
1
collegesucks United States. Oct 30 2008 16:39. Posts 5780
McCain 1
joke?
0
eightfourO United States. Oct 30 2008 17:17. Posts 820
On October 30 2008 15:35 vegable wrote:
socialist liberation front all the way
you want socialism??
lol @ the group you represent "socialist liberation front"...
First two sentences of the website of your group...
"The National Socialist Liberation Front
As an alternative to the lack of any pure education on the National Socialist World View to members of the National Socialist Community, we have established the National Socialist Liberation Front.
The primary purpose of the N.S.L.F. is to fill in this void by educating a select group of white persons already committed to the National Socialist World View in the hopes that they will gain a better understanding of Adolf Hitler's National Socialism in relation to today's contemporary political situation."
Supporting what Hitler did... wow.
I am a god damn Rootin Tootin Shootin Cowboy!!
Last edit: 30/10/2008 17:34
1
TimDawg United States. Oct 30 2008 17:31. Posts 10197
actually voted for Obama yesterday
online bob is actually a pretty smart person, not at all like the creepy fucker that sits in the sofa telling me he does nasty shit to me when im asleep - pinball
1
Minsk United States. Oct 30 2008 17:33. Posts 1558
you guys base large % of choice on poker policy or no?
On October 30 2008 16:31 TimDawg wrote:
actually voted for Obama yesterday
yeah I sent my mail-in-ballot about 10 days ago.
84o if you take veg seriously your head will explode in time.
Sorry mez, decided not to add in the other candidates cause it skews the results a bit. If I'm putting nadar/barr/paul and so on in there it gets long. I'm curious if you had to choose btwn the 2, who would you vote for.
On October 30 2008 16:33 Minsk wrote:
you guys base large % of choice on poker policy or no?
I definitely think Obama is the best for poker out of those 2 (Ron Paul is the best out of everyone who's run for prez this yr though). But for me the poker issue is far from being a deciding factor. Character is a big part and Obama totally dominates in that category imo. Also policy wise I agree with Obama about 90%.
As far as character goes, Obama has shown himself to be calm, collected, composed in a crisis, and capable of surrounding himself with the best advisers from all sides and then making smart decisions based on all of that advice. McCain just changes his position whenever the political winds shift:
InnovativeYogis.com
Last edit: 30/10/2008 17:40
0
eightfourO United States. Oct 30 2008 17:35. Posts 820
On October 30 2008 16:31 TimDawg wrote:
actually voted for Obama yesterday
yeah I sent my mail-in-ballot about 10 days ago.
84o if you take veg seriously your head will explode in time.
Sorry mez, decided not to add in the other candidates cause it skews the results a bit. If I'm putting nadar/barr/paul and so on in there it gets long. I'm curious if you had to choose btwn the 2, who would you vote for.
i was hoping he wasn't serious...
*edit*
Sorry mez, decided not to add in the other candidates cause it skews the results a bit. If I'm putting nadar/barr/paul and so on in there it gets long. I'm curious if you had to choose btwn the 2, who would you vote for.
Because you know they steal votes away from dems??
Ralph nadar doesn't run for pres in 2000 and 2004, Dems win.
The huge diffrence in the political worlds of USA and Europe continue to baffle me.
I vote Obama obv because republicans and their values scare the crap out of me and I seriously think the world couldnt handle another 4 years with them.
[quote]Sorry mez, decided not to add in the other candidates cause it skews the results a bit. If I'm putting nadar/barr/paul and so on in there it gets long. I'm curious if you had to choose btwn the 2, who would you vote for.
Because you know they steal votes away from dems??
Ralph nadar doesn't run for pres in 2000 and 2004, Dems win.
Actually this year it's bob barr stealing votes from McCain. Ron Paul is doing it in a few places as well. Nadar is doing much worse than those 2. Most of the dems are sick of nadar and since they're excited about obama they aren't even giving him a chance.
InnovativeYogis.com
1
TheHuHu3 United States. Oct 30 2008 17:42. Posts 5544
Wow, lots of socialists in here. If Obama wins, the United States will crumble.
The fact that if the republicans win there is a good chance Sarah fucking Palin, a completely clueless, closeminded and unqualified hockey mom could become president in one of the most powerful nations in the world should be argument enough to not vote republican.
what wackass site is this nigga?
1
newbie.cjb United States. Oct 30 2008 17:59. Posts 3096
On October 30 2008 16:42 TheHuHu3 wrote:
Wow, lots of socialists in here. If Obama wins, the United States will crumble.
Republicans called Medicare and social security "socialist" years ago and now they're 2 of the most popular govt programs of all time. We've always had SOME socialist aspects to our govt and Obama isn't making any big changes to what we already have. If you want to argue that continuing to cut taxes for the middle class while letting tax cuts expire on the upper class is socialism then I personally think you have a fucked up way of looking at things. And as for healthcare, Obama is NOT socializing medicine - he's just adding a 3rd option on top of getting it through work and getting it privately. Now you can choose to get it with the govt and get the same plan that members of congress have.
It blows my mind that any smart people would actually believe that Obama is a socialist or communist. You do realize that all the real socialists are insulted by the comparison? Actually you probably don't, but if you bothered to look it up you'd see that it's the case.
On October 30 2008 16:59 newbie.cjb wrote:
obama is a muslim and a terroist
I gotta assume ur joking cause I always got the impression that you weren't stupid. ^^
InnovativeYogis.com
Last edit: 30/10/2008 18:20
0
eightfourO United States. Oct 30 2008 18:21. Posts 820
On October 30 2008 16:59 newbie.cjb wrote:
mccain/palin 08!
obama is a muslim and a terroist
he's a christian...my brother in law goes to the same church as him in chicago....
get educated 1time
On October 30 2008 17:25 Pacifist wrote:
Barack Hussein Obama is a muslim-sympathizing turban-wearing blackchildren-bearing socialist-terrorist.
agreed, i mean the guy's name is Hussein!! Hussein FFS... would you vote for somebody named Hitler? no... go McCain!
rofl
i'll vote for whoever will make my 4 overdraft fee's disappear =*( just pissin' away $140... guess i forgot i'm in a recession and i need $140...can't get them taken away either...banks need the $140 more than me. All of this because the gas stations don't get money until a few days after i buy the gas.
i am not voting.
i like obama better as a candidate but taxes are so important for me that im not sure if it would be in my best interest to vote for obama :/ pretty sure id pay like 100k less a year by having mccain in office
i put undecided.
NewbSaibot: 18 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Because FUCK YOU, Daut
On October 30 2008 16:42 TheHuHu3 wrote:
Wow, luckily not many capitalists in here. If McCain wins, the World will crumble.
capitolism is good, it produces better products for better prices through market competition, while giving someone the drive to work hard and make something of themselves.
and on taxes, how about the same % all the way down the line?? It's not fair to the wealthy to be taxed 64% of what they make and the poor (like me) only 15%...doesn't make sense. The statistic is that the top 3% of the wealthiest population make up like 70% of the Governments income...
I am a god damn Rootin Tootin Shootin Cowboy!!
Last edit: 30/10/2008 18:52
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Oct 30 2008 18:54. Posts 3096
rofl its so hilarious when people claim obama is socialist
lol POKER
1
matdon460 United States. Oct 30 2008 19:01. Posts 1089
I voted for Obama the other day and I'm going to the Obama rally tonight at Mizzou.
well equal rights, is anybody really against it? o the other two.. good to know.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
0
eightfourO United States. Oct 30 2008 20:59. Posts 820
On October 30 2008 19:56 Baal wrote:
lol
well equal rights, is anybody really against it? o the other two.. good to know.
personally i believe conservatives, because of their stance against gay-marriage, are to an extent against equal rights. I feel that we would have reached equal rights (atleast on this level) when anyone and everyone can do what they what in the pursuit of happiness. And if being married to another dude makes that person happy, they should persue that initiative just as i will pursue what makes me happy.
*edit*
which is snortin' coke and shootin deer w/ mah ak (def not ace-king)
I am a god damn Rootin Tootin Shootin Cowboy!!
Last edit: 30/10/2008 21:00
1
Artanis[Xp] Netherlands. Oct 30 2008 21:01. Posts 4697
nader obv, poll is rigged.
1
GirlsRVicious United States. Oct 30 2008 21:15. Posts 1094
On October 30 2008 16:59 newbie.cjb wrote:
mccain/palin 08!
obama is a muslim and a terroist
truth
LOL Live Pokerz
1
GirlsRVicious United States. Oct 30 2008 21:17. Posts 1094
On October 30 2008 18:01 matdon460 wrote:
I voted for Obama the other day and I'm going to the Obama rally tonight at Mizzou.
damn liberal columbia standard
LOL Live Pokerz
1
TenBagger United States. Oct 30 2008 21:22. Posts 2018
On October 30 2008 17:39 Daut wrote:
i am not voting.
i like obama better as a candidate but taxes are so important for me that im not sure if it would be in my best interest to vote for obama :/ pretty sure id pay like 100k less a year by having mccain in office
i put undecided.
I'll be more than happy to crunch those numbers for you if you'd like. But unless you win another PCA, I highly doubt the difference is going to be anywhere near 100K.
1
TenBagger United States. Oct 30 2008 21:36. Posts 2018
I just did some rough math, and yes I know that there are a lot of other variables/deductions that would alter these numbers. But these numbers will be generally accurate for the vast majority of people.
For daut to pay an extra 100K a year under obama's tax plan, as a single filer, he would have to earn $2,405,646.20 a year. Even if he made a million bucks, his taxes under obama would increase by $35,340 which is a large sum in absolute terms but represents only 3.5% of his total income.
But if you do report over a million bucks in income, as much as I dislike the republicans, I really cannot blame you for voting with McCain. Even if you're reporting over 500K a year, I'd say you have a legitimate basis to vote republican. But if you are earning between 250K-500K a year, the increase in taxes is so small and insignificant that it shouldn't even be a major consideration for a rational individual.
I wonder why this thread was really made...
out of all the assumptions one could make, Imma guess it was to make oneself feel better
I mean, even a dumbass such as myself coulda told u the results of such a poll here without even a seconds hesitation
The probability of someone watching you is proportional to the stupidity of your action.
0
eightfourO United States. Oct 30 2008 21:52. Posts 820
does anyone know anything about Alan Keyes?
I am a god damn Rootin Tootin Shootin Cowboy!!
1
TenBagger United States. Oct 30 2008 21:54. Posts 2018
On October 30 2008 20:45 Zorglub wrote:
Some people vote on one party because they believe its best for the country/children/future and even if its not necessarily best for their own wallet
Sure, but even if I don't agree with it, I can see the reasons why a wealthy individual would vote for McCain if it were to save him 100K a year. However, there are plenty of Americans in the upper middle class making say between 250K-500K that believe that they would pay a lot more in taxes under Obama when in fact they would pay roughly an extra 1% of their gross income.
But the most ridiculous thing is when middle class and poor people vote republican because somehow they think that they would be better off financially because they believe in trickle down economics. That somehow the fact that some billionare will pay 100+ million dollars less in taxes under the republicans will make them better off.
0
eightfourO United States. Oct 30 2008 21:55. Posts 820
250K-500K a yr is "upper middle class"??? wtf does that make a family about 65k/yr?? lower class?
On October 30 2008 20:45 Zorglub wrote:
Some people vote on one party because they believe its best for the country/children/future and even if its not necessarily best for their own wallet
Sure, but even if I don't agree with it, I can see the reasons why a wealthy individual would vote for McCain if it were to save him 100K a year. However, there are plenty of Americans in the upper middle class making say between 250K-500K that believe that they would pay a lot more in taxes under Obama when in fact they would pay roughly an extra 1% of their gross income.
But the most ridiculous thing is when middle class and poor people vote republican because somehow they think that they would be better off financially because they believe in trickle down economics. That somehow the fact that some billionare will pay 100+ million dollars less in taxes under the republicans will make them better off.
yeah i actually just saw that, i couldnt believe it, people think that if wealthy people get taxed harder, they will just raise the price of the products so it will fuck the lower classes LOL.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
TenBagger United States. Oct 30 2008 22:07. Posts 2018
ask a family making 250K a year and living in manhattan if they feel like they are upper class and they will tell you no. 65K a year is middle class but it would be extremely difficult to support a family on that income in NYC.
tenbagger where can i see a tax chart for the different parties.
in your example w/ daut you state the differnce (like 100k more if he makes 2,4 and obama rules) but whats the absolute numbers here? how much is the republican tax?
obama;s plan is to raise the top 2 tax brackets from 33% to 36% and 35% to 39.6%.
also keep in mind that it is a marginal tax rate so here is an example:
An individual pays tax at a given bracket only for each dollar within that bracket's range. For example, a single taxpayer who earned $10,000 in 2009 would be taxed 10% of each dollar earned from the 1st dollar to the 8,350th dollar (10% × $8,350 = $835.00), then 15% of each dollar earned from the 8,351th dollar to the 10,000th dollar (15% × $1,650 = $247.50), for a total of $1,082.50. Notice this amount ($1,082.50) is lower than if the individual had been taxed at 15% on the full $10,000 (for a tax of $1,500). This is because the individual's marginal rate (the percentage tax on the last dollar earned, here 15%) has no effect on the income taxed at a lower bracket (here the first $8,350 of income taxed at 10%). This ensures that every rise in a person's pre-tax salary results in an increase of his after-tax salary.
Also, obama's plan to raise the top two tax rates comes with a plan to increase the start of the 33% bracket to $250,000. Therefore, someone earning $260,000 a year will face higher taxes (from 33% to 36%) on only the $1,000 earned above $250,000. So the net effect of someone making $260,000 a year under obama's tax plan is an extra 3% of $1000 or $300 a year which works out to an increase of .1% of their gross income.
TalentedTom Canada. Oct 30 2008 22:31. Posts 20070
On October 30 2008 17:09 nolan wrote:
i misclicked my vote
we still need to account for the other 5 mcain votes
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us and as we let our own lights shine we unconsciously give other people permision to do the same
On October 30 2008 21:13 SpasticInk wrote:
in sweden a guy with that income (not from poker tough) would pay someting like 1,32 millions in yearly taxation
yes, but sweden, denmark and a few other EU countries enjoy many many many more benefits than the americans enjoy (and even a couple more than canada).
a lot of people say sweden is *too* progressively liberal or whatever, i am a huge supporter of the way you guys have been running things.
apparently denmark has the highest income taxes in the world? although, they also enjoy great medical care, great infrastructure, very little-to-no corruption in politics (aka, lol at USA) and FREE (yes, free) higher levels of education.
as a canadian, fuck.. that sexy free university + masters degree looks pretty goddamned sexy
Yup we are always among the highest tax payers, but we were also: Happiest people in the world 2008, Best city to live in 2008, Best country to conduct business in 2008. (All renowned studies by big universities or magasines), we get 1200$ a month for studying, free healthcare, free education, free elderly care, pensions when you get old, money if you get unemployed, social security, 1.6% unemployed.
We use reverse trickle down system (socialism) and it works great over here, no really poor people, big middle class, some rich and a few stinking rich. I think my tax money is well spent and I dont think our wages would be as high as they are without this high tax.
I started out with nothing and I still got most of it left
On October 30 2008 20:01 Artanis[Xp] wrote:
nader obv, poll is rigged.
read the txt, nader not being in there is already explained in OP and comments.
On October 30 2008 20:47 Svenman87 wrote:
wtf... where the fuck is Bob Barr?
Libertarian party!!!! ONE TIMEEEE!!!!
Sry sven, same thing as the nadar stuff. Plus barr tends to pull votes from mccain and he needs all the help he can get in this poll.
On October 30 2008 20:55 eightfourO wrote:
250K-500K a yr is "upper middle class"??? wtf does that make a family about 65k/yr?? lower class?
No it's not. What most of us don't understand (I just learned this recently) is that if you make over 250k a year you only get extra tax on the money you make ABOVE 250k. So say you make 260k a year, then your extra taxes are ONLY on that extra 10k.
So the way it breaks down is:
Under 150K = big tax cut
150k - 200k = Tax cut
200k - 250k = Taxes don't change
250k - 337k = Minor tax increase (3% on money over 250k)
337k and above = Tax increase (4.6% on money over 337k)
At least that's how I understand it.
The 250k - 600k tax increase is very small, and tenbagger will have to help me here with specifics, but I think it's like 3% on the amount over 250k. So if you made 300k you'd get a 3% tax increase on 50k and everything else is the same.
InnovativeYogis.com
Last edit: 31/10/2008 01:35
1
Svenman87 United States. Oct 30 2008 23:19. Posts 4636
On October 30 2008 21:58 jkpickett wrote:
neither...i'll go "waste my vote" on ron paul and feel damn good about myself.
why would you vote for Ron Paul when Bob Barr is running? : You truly are just a Ron Paul fan boi
1
TalentedTom Canada. Oct 30 2008 23:40. Posts 20070
Don't let Barack fool you guys, hes just supressing "it", and he can only sustain this level of composure for so long, it's just a matter of time before this happens:
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us and as we let our own lights shine we unconsciously give other people permision to do the same
On October 30 2008 20:01 Artanis[Xp] wrote:
nader obv, poll is rigged.
read the txt, nader not being in there is already explained in OP and comments.
On October 30 2008 20:47 Svenman87 wrote:
wtf... where the fuck is Bob Barr?
Libertarian party!!!! ONE TIMEEEE!!!!
Sry sven, same thing as the nadar stuff. Plus barr tends to pull votes from mccain and he needs all the help he can get in this poll.
On October 30 2008 20:55 eightfourO wrote:
250K-500K a yr is "upper middle class"??? wtf does that make a family about 65k/yr?? lower class?
No it's not. What most of us don't understand (I just learned this recently) is that if you make over 250k a year you only get extra tax on the money you make ABOVE 250k. So say you make 260k a year, then your extra taxes are ONLY on that extra 10k.
So the way it breaks down is:
Under 150K = big tax cut
150k - 200k = Tax cut
200k - 250k = Taxes don't change
250k - 600k = Minor tax increase (3% on money over 250k)
600k and above = Tax increase (4.6% on money over 600k)
At least that's how I understand it.
The 250k - 600k tax increase is very small, and tenbagger will have to help me here with specifics, but I think it's like 3% on the amount over 250k. So if you made 300k you'd get a 3% tax increase on 50k and everything else is the same.
Ahh ok, thanks teabagger, I'll go fix that in my OP.
and thanks for not taking my monies at the tables tonight =) I just decided to dodge you as much as possible, hehe. Funny how that guy asked if we were colluding and then said "teabagger doesn't seem like a fish to me!"
InnovativeYogis.com
1
masterfrywad United States. Oct 31 2008 01:38. Posts 329
On October 30 2008 20:36 TenBagger wrote:
I just did some rough math, and yes I know that there are a lot of other variables/deductions that would alter these numbers. But these numbers will be generally accurate for the vast majority of people.
For daut to pay an extra 100K a year under obama's tax plan, as a single filer, he would have to earn $2,405,646.20 a year. Even if he made a million bucks, his taxes under obama would increase by $35,340 which is a large sum in absolute terms but represents only 3.5% of his total income.
But if you do report over a million bucks in income, as much as I dislike the republicans, I really cannot blame you for voting with McCain. Even if you're reporting over 500K a year, I'd say you have a legitimate basis to vote republican. But if you are earning between 250K-500K a year, the increase in taxes is so small and insignificant that it shouldn't even be a major consideration for a rational individual.
less increase than i expected for sure, but ill almost certainly be making over 500k
NewbSaibot: 18 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Because FUCK YOU, Daut
1
TenBagger United States. Oct 31 2008 04:55. Posts 2018
then in my mind, you are justified if you do decide to go mccain.
On October 31 2008 00:53 lachlan wrote:
Poll: Who should be LP's president?
(Vote): Baal
(Vote): [vital]Myth
(Vote): RaiNKhAN
(Vote): Rekrul
(Vote): TalentedTom
(Vote): Fazi
(Vote): Other
OMG. Are there other candidates for president?!? I've never heard of them lol. Why tf do they even bother getting votes when they have no chance and what retards vote for them when they have no chance of winning. Giving away their votes...
On October 31 2008 04:50 Liofle wrote:
OMG. Are there other candidates for president?!? I've never heard of them lol. Why tf do they even bother getting votes when they have no chance and what retards vote for them when they have no chance of winning. Giving away their votes...
im not sure im USA but in Mexico a party gets a share of the federal funds for campaigns etc on a % depending on how many votes they gain, otherwise u wouldnt get new parties ever.
Obama plans to spend America broke, "Altogether, Mr. Obama is promising at least $4.3 trillion of increased spending and reduced tax revenue from 2009 to 2018 -- roughly an extra $430 billion a year by 2012-2013" - Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122480790550265061.html?mod=article-outset-box
There is almost no way the American government can source these funds. It is described in detail in the article, but basically "the harsh reality is that this Democrat's quest for hundreds of billions more revenue each year would have to reach deep into the pockets of the people much lower on the economic ladder. Even then he'd come up short."
In addition Obama plans to give licences and social security benefits to illegal immigrants (in the past he has already voted for these reforms S.Amdt.3985 to S.2611). If you have any conservative view, this should immediately strike him off the list.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake - Napolean Bonaparte
1
fakeshaver United States. Oct 31 2008 10:57. Posts 1313
i think obama is going to win the electoral map by a landslide
1
jkpickett United States. Oct 31 2008 12:39. Posts 1403
On October 30 2008 21:58 jkpickett wrote:
neither...i'll go "waste my vote" on ron paul and feel damn good about myself.
why would you vote for Ron Paul when Bob Barr is running? : You truly are just a Ron Paul fan boi
You truly are just a troll for my posts! I can't keep count of the times I make a post and sure enough Sven has to make some tired comment about it. You really can't get enough of me can you? And to answer your question, I'm not really voting. It's a waste of time and I don't like to perpetuate the system. I can expect to open this thread tomorrow and see some rebuttal with a lame attempt at humor from you again and I look forward to it. How's you boy Scot in Iraq doing btw?
Those who oppose authority so vehemently often abuse it when given immense power
Obama plans to spend America broke, "Altogether, Mr. Obama is promising at least $4.3 trillion of increased spending and reduced tax revenue from 2009 to 2018 -- roughly an extra $430 billion a year by 2012-2013" - Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122480790550265061.html?mod=article-outset-box
There is almost no way the American government can source these funds. It is described in detail in the article, but basically "the harsh reality is that this Democrat's quest for hundreds of billions more revenue each year would have to reach deep into the pockets of the people much lower on the economic ladder. Even then he'd come up short."
In addition Obama plans to give licences and social security benefits to illegal immigrants (in the past he has already voted for these reforms S.Amdt.3985 to S.2611). If you have any conservative view, this should immediately strike him off the list.
If you look ALL estimates say that both McCain and Obama are going to increase the deficit. It's a question of how you want the deficit to be increased, not whether we're going to fix it. One big difference is that McCain promises to balance the budget in his first 4 years which ALL economists say is a load of BS. I don't like being pandered too and btwn the gas tax holiday, the promise to balance the budget and a bunch of other things, McCain has become the king of pander.
I have seen that Obama is ok with helping illegal immigrants become legal, but you make it sound like he just wants to find em all and give em a license and social security money. He has a process that they need to go through and it's not a handout. I've heard about the license thing and I think that he is ok with being more lenient on that and giving it to em before they finish everything, but I've never heard of him giving SS to illegals. I find that hard to believe and had the impression that he would give them a path to citizenship and once they became citizens they would get things like SS. Also I think part of allowing the licenses is to get people into the system and on path to becoming tax paying citizens.
Lastly, on immigration McCain basically proposed a lot of similar views in his own immigration bill, but then he switched his position when he ran for president because he realized that republicans didn't like his bill. So now he OPPOSES THE BILL HE WROTE!! WTF kind of consistency or character is that?
NMcNasty United States. Oct 31 2008 15:43. Posts 2041
voting obama
he seems like a relatively honest and intelligent individual and carries himself with dignity. I see him reaching out to the international community more and approaching situations diplomatically, which is something McCain just has no chance of doing. I agree with his tax plan but I dont see it passing. Raising taxes 12% or whatever it is on the rich and powerful just isnt going to happen. I also dont see much getting done in the way of healthcare or energy independence, its just too expensive. I kind of fear he's just not going to turn around the bad economy and wont be able to afford any of his proposals, but whatever, getting someone in office who's the opposite of stupid and arrogant is priority #1. The US has a lot of healing to do cuz of Bush.
McCain - really not so bad as far as Republicans go, I think he gets some unfair heat from most liberals. But still, we're at war in 2 countries and could easily go to a third, and the economy is going to shit and he wants to cut taxes for the wealthy? When will people realize when u really need fckin money (and we obv do right now) u gotta get it from somewhere.
Ron Paul - obv awesome cuz of poker, and I have a couple of econ student friends that love him for whatever reason, but he's still a republican :{
Nader - gets unfair heat from all sides. Guy ran on a platform of attacking corporate crime in 2000. Democrats pretty much ignored the issue he cared about most which is partly why they lost the election, and now after our economy has been raped by scandal after scandal people are starting to wake up and realize that u gotta take this shit seriously.
1
TimDawg United States. Oct 31 2008 15:49. Posts 10197
On October 30 2008 16:42 SakiSaki wrote:
The fact that if the republicans win there is a good chance Sarah fucking Palin, a completely clueless, closeminded and unqualified hockey mom could become president in one of the most powerful nations in the world should be argument enough to not vote republican.
yeah this is like horrifyingly scary to me
online bob is actually a pretty smart person, not at all like the creepy fucker that sits in the sofa telling me he does nasty shit to me when im asleep - pinball
TheHuHu3 United States. Oct 31 2008 16:20. Posts 5544
On October 30 2008 17:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
rofl its so hilarious when people claim obama is socialist
Universal health care and the redistribution of wealth. Go figure.
TheHuHu4 coming soon :)
1
TenBagger United States. Oct 31 2008 16:20. Posts 2018
NYtimes has a good article today citing independent research done by the Brookings Institute and Deloitte examining the tax policies of the two presidential candidates:
and NMcNasty, where do you get the 12% figure? This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say the general american public, and even the educated american public vastly overestimates the impact of obama's tax policy.
And even I am guilty because even my previous calcuations overestimated the impact. As you can see here:
interesting, I'm gonna research further into how they came up with those calculations. First thing to note is that only applies to people earning over 2.8 million which includes people earning billions of dollars a year. So the average increase of 700K does not apply to those earning 2.8 but rather is skewed by the fact that someone like james simons will pay an additional hundred million or so on his multi billion dollar gross.
secondly, I find it hard to figure out how the average tax bill will go up 11.5% when the top marginal tax rate is increased by 4.6%. They must include a lot of income on capital gains, but it still doesn't quite add up to me. I have a suspicion that the numbers are engineered but let me dig a little deeper here and read the actual brookings report before I make definitive judgments.
1
TenBagger United States. Oct 31 2008 17:54. Posts 2018
ah i see, it isn't an increase of 11.5% off the gross income, it is an increase of 11.5% off of the taxes paid.
So lets say you earned 1 million and paid 300K in taxes for an effective rate of 30%. If you're taxes paid increases to 345K for an effective rate of 34.5%, your tax rate went up by 4.5% BUT, that 4.5% represents an increase of 11.5% off of the 30%.
Now I call that an increase of 4.5%, but if you wanted to magnify the effect, you can call it an increase of 11.5% of taxes paid.
1
TenBagger United States. Oct 31 2008 17:58. Posts 2018
oh and the top bracket in the washington post graphic linked by NMcNasty
It says above 2.87 million (top .1%) will pay an average of an extra $701,885 in taxes.
However, it does not show that the average income of the top .1% is actually 6.1 million. That range only starts at 2.87 million. So they make it look like someone earning 2.87 million will pay an extra 700K in taxes when it fact it is only a fraction of that amount. All these little things give the appearance that the tax hike is bigger than it actually is.
1
TenBagger United States. Oct 31 2008 18:02. Posts 2018
cuz people will see oh my taxes will go up 11.5% and I make 3 million so I'll pay an additional 11.5% of 3 million for a sum of 345K. That is the false assumption they take. When in fact they PAID 900K in taxes and the 11.5% increase is on the 900K paid so it is an extra 135K which works out to an increase of 4.5% of their income.
On October 30 2008 21:13 SpasticInk wrote:
in sweden a guy with that income (not from poker tough) would pay someting like 1,32 millions in yearly taxation
yes, but sweden, denmark and a few other EU countries enjoy many many many more benefits than the americans enjoy (and even a couple more than canada).
a lot of people say sweden is *too* progressively liberal or whatever, i am a huge supporter of the way you guys have been running things.
apparently denmark has the highest income taxes in the world? although, they also enjoy great medical care, great infrastructure, very little-to-no corruption in politics (aka, lol at USA) and FREE (yes, free) higher levels of education.
as a canadian, fuck.. that sexy free university + masters degree looks pretty goddamned sexy
Yup we are always among the highest tax payers, but we were also: Happiest people in the world 2008, Best city to live in 2008, Best country to conduct business in 2008. (All renowned studies by big universities or magasines), we get 1200$ a month for studying, free healthcare, free education, free elderly care, pensions when you get old, money if you get unemployed, social security, 1.6% unemployed.
We use reverse trickle down system (socialism) and it works great over here, no really poor people, big middle class, some rich and a few stinking rich. I think my tax money is well spent and I dont think our wages would be as high as they are without this high tax.
This.
Though I'd like to know how to get 1200$ in SU. Thats like 6000kr. You would need to be living on your own, have divorced extremely poor parents, be handicapped and have 3 babies.
I like how we run things in Denmark and I'm gratefull for the 400$ a month I got while in school, but 1200$ is a bit high.
Also, great pay. Even the shittiest jobs you can get aslong as you don't have a criminal record is 20$/hour
On October 30 2008 17:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
rofl its so hilarious when people claim obama is socialist
Universal health care and the redistribution of wealth. Go figure.
zomg somebody else see's what i am saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaying.
how about the fact that both mccain and obama voted for the bailout, which is the biggest step towards socialism since FDR implamented social welfare in the 30's??
Spor - there are mannnny more than two parties. On the ballot in Texas there are...
"Election date is 11/04/2008
Name Party Jonathan Allen Independent, Write-In, HeartQuake '08 Charles O. Baldwin Independent, Write-In, Alaskan Independence, Constitution, Constitution Party of Florida, Constitution Party of Illinois, Independent Green, Nebraska, Nominated by Petition, Reform Party of Kansas, U.S. Taxpayers, U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan Robert L. Barr Independent, Libertarian, Write-In, Nominated by Petition Thaddaus Hill Write-In Alan L. Keyes Independent, Write-In, America's Independent Party, American Independent John S. McCain Republican, Conservative Party of New York , Independence Party of New York Cynthia Ann McKinney Independent, Green Party, Write-In, Green-Rainbow, Mountain Party, Nominated by Petition, Pacific Green, Unaffiliated, Wisconsin Green Brian P. Moore Independent, Write-In, Liberty Union, Nominated by Petition, Socialist, Socialist Party USA Ralph Nader No Party Affiliation, Independent, Write-In, Natural Law Party, Alaskan Independence, Ecology Party of Florida, New Mexico Independent Party, Nominated by Petition, Nomination by other than Primary, Peace, Populist Barack H. Obama Democratic, Democratic/Farmer/Labor, Democratic-NPL, Working Families Party of New York"
NMcNasty United States. Oct 31 2008 19:21. Posts 2041
On October 31 2008 17:02 TenBagger wrote:
cuz people will see oh my taxes will go up 11.5% and I make 3 million so I'll pay an additional 11.5% of 3 million for a sum of 345K. That is the false assumption they take. When in fact they PAID 900K in taxes and the 11.5% increase is on the 900K paid so it is an extra 135K which works out to an increase of 4.5% of their income.
Thats not what the chart shows because it lists the change in income right next to the percentages.
My guess is that u arent factoring in all the other types of taxes besides income taxes that only the super rich have to worry about.
1
TenBagger United States. Oct 31 2008 20:06. Posts 2018
On October 31 2008 17:02 TenBagger wrote:
cuz people will see oh my taxes will go up 11.5% and I make 3 million so I'll pay an additional 11.5% of 3 million for a sum of 345K. That is the false assumption they take. When in fact they PAID 900K in taxes and the 11.5% increase is on the 900K paid so it is an extra 135K which works out to an increase of 4.5% of their income.
Thats not what the chart shows because it lists the change in income right next to the percentages.
My guess is that u arent factoring in all the other types of taxes besides income taxes that only the super rich have to worry about.
Hmm... you are actually right NMcnasty, 700K extra in taxes paid is 11.5% of the gross of the top .1% of incomes.
I found the actual report that they are citing and you can read it here:
If you go to page 4, they show 2 charts. First chart is titled
"Figure 2.Obama and McCain Tax Proposals as Described by Campaign Staff and Economic AdvisersAverage Percentage Change in After-Tax Income, 2012"
and it shows a change in after tax income of a little roughly 3% for the top .1% of earners which is consistent with my calculations according to what is listed on obama's website.
However, there is a second chart titled:
"Obama and McCain Tax Proposals as Described in their Stump SpeechesAverage Percentage Change in After-Tax Income, 2009-"
and that is the one that shows 11.5% change that is quoted on the washington post article that you linked. As hard as I looked, I could not find the details about the differences according to their "stump speeches". The fact that the basis of these calculations are nowhere to be found and is based upon the author's interpretation of their "stump speeches" make it particularly dubious to me. Kinda like in science if you can't replicate an experiment, then it is worthless. Likewise, if they don't make public the details of assumptions that they used to make the calculations other than the author's braod interpretation of the candidates "stump speeches" then it is absolutely worthless IMHO.
1
SneakrFreakr United Kingdom. Oct 31 2008 20:22. Posts 2534
imo
rivered for my fucking bankroll - NeillyJQ
1
TenBagger United States. Oct 31 2008 20:36. Posts 2018
I reread the whole report again in depth and they its amazing how incredibly vague they are on the stump speech assumption. I mean, we have a thorough written outline of their tax policies and if you are gonna make a whole new set of calculations that differ from it, at least tell us what variables you're changing.
So as a footnote in page 1 they state:
1. See text for description of provisions included in campaign advisors and stump speech versions of candidates' tax plans.
Now in the body of the text, the only mention of any difference between the stump speech calculations and the official campaign policy calculations are the following:
Obama has proposed raising the payroll tax for those earning over $250,000. Again, he has not provided details, but TPC assumes this would be a 2 percent income tax surcharge on adjusted gross income above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for others and an additional 2 percent payroll tax for employers on each worker’s earnings above those levels. Such a plan would increase taxes on high-income workers by nearly $400 billion over a decade.
Ok, so Obama has mentioned the possibility of raising payroll tax on those earning over 250K, but has given zero details and the TPC takes it upon themselves to assume that the figure will be 2%. Where did they get this number from? The fact that they would make these calculations and pass them off as fact when it is based on something that Obama never said that he would definitely do and to arbitrarily assign a number for the increase is flat out ridiculous.
Now at the bottom of page 3, they state the following:
The new TPC analysis updates earlier sets of estimates released in June and July 2008. The revised estimates reflect changes in each candidate’s plans, additional details released by the campaigns (particularly that by the Obama campaign on August 14, 2008), and modifications to our tax modeling procedures.
And they end up with a few tables such as this:
"Senator Obama's Tax Proposals of August 14, 2008: Impact on Tax Revenue, 2009-18 Economic Advisers' Version (No Payroll Surtax)"
Where they give projections based upon the the campaign's official policy and without their dubious projected payroll surtax. But low and behold, they give no concrete data that about their so called projections based on "stump speeches" that they so promised on page 1.
This to me is a classic example that is mentioned by Noam Chomsky in his book "Manufacturing Consent". The so called "liberal" Brookings Institute think tank produces two sets of projections. One based on actual published tax policy and the other based on god knows what since they never bother to detail it. Then the Washington Post has a choice to publish a graphic, one based on real numbers and the other based on some arbitrary set of assumptions by the author that no one knows about. Guess which one they publish?
And all the readers of that Washington Post article, obviously do not bother to do the research that I just did and read the footnotes in the actual report, they come to believe that Obama's tax plan will raise their taxes by 11.5% of their gross annual income.
On October 30 2008 16:42 SakiSaki wrote:
The fact that if the republicans win there is a good chance Sarah fucking Palin, a completely clueless, closeminded and unqualified hockey mom could become president in one of the most powerful nations in the world should be argument enough to not vote republican.
yeah this is like horrifyingly scary to me
if this is like so totally horrifyingly scary, and u vote Obama, I'm just gonna laugh at u + Show Spoiler +
and then I'm actually gonna be sad
because sorry SakiSaki, dunno what u read or watch to draw ur opinions of ppl, but to me ur post actually makes u seem the one who is clueless and closeminded and just spouting without really thinking
I mean, u see Palin and one of the main things u think is hockey mom? LOL man someone bamboozled u good
anyone with any common sense should know there are two sides to every coin
and so often the information that u read or hear is so totally slanted one way or the other that its hard to see whats actually happened which is usually a fine line in between
but back on track, if u really compare track records and history etc to see who out of the main two P.O.S. groups is closest to being unqualified, it would easily be Obama
I mean, if I had the time and energy, I could go more in depth on this amongst plenty of other issues and debate with all you Obama ninjas here that I didn't think were totally one sided, but hey, instead I'll just let the man speak my point for himself
it's only a minute long
We Americans are totally pulling a big one on ourselves
4 years later he is a messiah to some -.-a
hello? almost wish I was a foreigner so I could just drink and laugh my fucking ass off as I watch Americans slowly kill what made them different and better
but u know, I'm starting to think all this is supposed to happen
u never miss something until its gone
ps
I wish every American (or really person for that matter) was forced growing up to read up on Ben Franklin
start at some of his quotes
pss
srry, taxes and $$ are not the single most important deciding factor in my vote so I'm rarely gonna ever be to long winded here about that
I'll just say Ron Paul
The probability of someone watching you is proportional to the stupidity of your action.
On October 31 2008 19:37 tloapc wrote:
[QUOTE]On October 31 2008 14:49 TimDawg wrote:
[QUOTE]On October 30 2008 16:42 SakiSaki wrote:
wish I was a foreigner so I could just drink and laugh my fucking ass off as I watch Americans slowly kill what made them different and better
but u know, I'm starting to think all this is supposed to happen
On October 30 2008 16:42 SakiSaki wrote:
The fact that if the republicans win there is a good chance Sarah fucking Palin, a completely clueless, closeminded and unqualified hockey mom could become president in one of the most powerful nations in the world should be argument enough to not vote republican.
yeah this is like horrifyingly scary to me
if this is like so totally horrifyingly scary, and u vote Obama, I'm just gonna laugh at u + Show Spoiler +
and then I'm actually gonna be sad
because sorry SakiSaki, dunno what u read or watch to draw ur opinions of ppl, but to me ur post actually makes u seem the one who is clueless and closeminded and just spouting without really thinking
I mean, u see Palin and one of the main things u think is hockey mom? LOL man someone bamboozled u good
anyone with any common sense should know there are two sides to every coin
and so often the information that u read or hear is so totally slanted one way or the other that its hard to see whats actually happened which is usually a fine line in between
but back on track, if u really compare track records and history etc to see who out of the main two P.O.S. groups is closest to being unqualified, it would easily be Obama
I mean, if I had the time and energy, I could go more in depth on this amongst plenty of other issues and debate with all you Obama ninjas here that I didn't think were totally one sided, but hey, instead I'll just let the man speak my point for himself
it's only a minute long
We Americans are totally pulling a big one on ourselves
4 years later he is a messiah to some -.-a
hello? almost wish I was a foreigner so I could just drink and laugh my fucking ass off as I watch Americans slowly kill what made them different and better
but u know, I'm starting to think all this is supposed to happen
u never miss something until its gone
ps
I wish every American (or really person for that matter) was forced growing up to read up on Ben Franklin
start at some of his quotes
pss
srry, taxes and $$ are not the single most important deciding factor in my vote so I'm rarely gonna ever be to long winded here about that
I'll just say Ron Paul
at :28 seconds obama completely vanished from the room
tell me ur talkin about something other than the confetti?
The probability of someone watching you is proportional to the stupidity of your action.
1
TenBagger United States. Oct 31 2008 20:49. Posts 2018
On October 31 2008 19:36 TenBagger wrote:
I reread the whole report again in depth and they its amazing how incredibly vague they are on the stump speech assumption. I mean, we have a thorough written outline of their tax policies and if you are gonna make a whole new set of calculations that differ from it, at least tell us what variables you're changing.
So as a footnote in page 1 they state:
1. See text for description of provisions included in campaign advisors and stump speech versions of candidates' tax plans.
Now in the body of the text, the only mention of any difference between the stump speech calculations and the official campaign policy calculations are the following:
Obama has proposed raising the payroll tax for those earning over $250,000. Again, he has not provided details, but TPC assumes this would be a 2 percent income tax surcharge on adjusted gross income above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for others and an additional 2 percent payroll tax for employers on each worker’s earnings above those levels. Such a plan would increase taxes on high-income workers by nearly $400 billion over a decade.
Ok, so Obama has mentioned the possibility of raising payroll tax on those earning over 250K, but has given zero details and the TPC takes it upon themselves to assume that the figure will be 2%. Where did they get this number from? The fact that they would make these calculations and pass them off as fact when it is based on something that Obama never said that he would definitely do and to arbitrarily assign a number for the increase is flat out ridiculous.
Now at the bottom of page 3, they state the following:
The new TPC analysis updates earlier sets of estimates released in June and July 2008. The revised estimates reflect changes in each candidate’s plans, additional details released by the campaigns (particularly that by the Obama campaign on August 14, 2008), and modifications to our tax modeling procedures.
And they end up with a few tables such as this:
"Senator Obama's Tax Proposals of August 14, 2008: Impact on Tax Revenue, 2009-18 Economic Advisers' Version (No Payroll Surtax)"
Where they give projections based upon the the campaign's official policy and without their dubious projected payroll surtax. But low and behold, they give no concrete data that about their so called projections based on "stump speeches" that they so promised on page 1.
This to me is a classic example that is mentioned by Noam Chomsky in his book "Manufacturing Consent". The so called "liberal" Brookings Institute think tank produces two sets of projections. One based on actual published tax policy and the other based on god knows what since they never bother to detail it. Then the Washington Post has a choice to publish a graphic, one based on real numbers and the other based on some arbitrary set of assumptions by the author that no one knows about. Guess which one they publish?
And all the readers of that Washington Post article, obviously do not bother to do the research that I just did and read the footnotes in the actual report, they come to believe that Obama's tax plan will raise their taxes by 11.5% of their gross annual income.
I think every high stakes US player should be very interested in the change in tax code and I invite them to read the primary source
We should be having intelligent conversation on topics such as this one rather than ignorant garbage ramblings by certain US/Pitcairn folks that shall remain nameless.
On October 30 2008 17:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
rofl its so hilarious when people claim obama is socialist
Universal health care and the redistribution of wealth. Go figure.
His proposal isn't universal health care - how many times does this have to be repeated before people learn it? He wants to add a 3rd option. Right now you can get health care via your employer or privately on your own. THAT WON'T CHANGE UNDER OBAMA! You will keep what you have now, IF YOU WANT TO! All he will do is try to lower the rates u currently pay AND add a 3rd option for how to get health care. You will now have a choice of getting the same govt plan that members of congress get.
That's it. Not socialist.
As far as redistribution of wealth, TAXES ARE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH! Even McCain was ok with it till he started this campaign:
All Obama is proposing is to KEEP CUTTING TAXES for the middle class while LETTING THE BUSH TAX CUTS EXPIRE. That is not wealth distribution. When we gave the rich bigger tax cuts than the middle class republicans thought it was just fine, but when we give the middle class a bigger tax cut than for the rich republicans freak out and call it redistribution. It's maddening.
On October 31 2008 19:37 tloapc wrote:
if u really compare track records and history etc to see who out of the main two P.O.S. groups is closest to being unqualified, it would easily be Obama
I mean, if I had the time and energy, I could go more in depth on this amongst plenty of other issues
Do you really, truly, sincerely believe that Palin has more experience than Obama and is better qualified to be president? Because she was on the city council and mayor of a 7,000 person town and governor of 600,000 person state for 2 yrs? And don't give me the "she has executive experience cause she was a governor" argument cause then you're saying she's more qualified than McCain and she should be the top of the ticket. I also don't buy that "she took on her own corrupt party so she's a reformer" BS - Cause the large amount of ethic complaints she's had including being found guilty abusing her authority in troopergate proves she's no reformer, and she only took on her own party cause she saw a chance to use their corruption against them and get herself ahead to a higher position in govt.
Obama has 3 years as an amazing community organizer, first black president of the Harvard law review, 12 years as a constitutional law professor, 8 years as a state senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, 4 years in the US senate representing 13 million people and sponsoring 131 bills, and while in the senate he served on the foreign affairs, environmental and public works, and veterans affairs committees. On top of that he's run the largest scale campaign in history with the most amazing ground game ever seen, and the most disciplined, focused and organized campaign ever, that even Bill Oreilly called the best campaign he'd ever seen. He's shown leadership, judgment, skill, an ability to choose the best advisers, and an amazing talent of inspiring people to actually take action!
I really don't see how someone can truly believe that Palin has more experience and is more qualified than Obama to be president, unless they're without all the facts or just an idiot.
tloap, sure she is just not a hockey mom, she is also from alaska, the great state with boundaries to the foreign powerful nation of russia, and as well Canada!
1
fakeshaver United States. Oct 31 2008 22:45. Posts 1313
1
fakeshaver United States. Oct 31 2008 22:47. Posts 1313
1
TheHuHu3 United States. Oct 31 2008 23:10. Posts 5544
On October 30 2008 17:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
rofl its so hilarious when people claim obama is socialist
Universal health care and the redistribution of wealth. Go figure.
His proposal isn't universal health care - how many times does this have to be repeated before people learn it? He wants to add a 3rd option. Right now you can get health care via your employer or privately on your own. THAT WON'T CHANGE UNDER OBAMA! You will keep what you have now, IF YOU WANT TO! All he will do is try to lower the rates u currently pay AND add a 3rd option for how to get health care. You will now have a choice of getting the same govt plan that members of congress get.
That's it. Not socialist.
As far as redistribution of wealth, TAXES ARE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH! Even McCain was ok with it till he started this campaign:
All Obama is proposing is to KEEP CUTTING TAXES for the middle class while LETTING THE BUSH TAX CUTS EXPIRE. That is not wealth distribution. When we gave the rich bigger tax cuts than the middle class republicans thought it was just fine, but when we give the middle class a bigger tax cut than for the rich republicans freak out and call it redistribution. It's maddening.
On October 31 2008 19:37 tloapc wrote:
if u really compare track records and history etc to see who out of the main two P.O.S. groups is closest to being unqualified, it would easily be Obama
I mean, if I had the time and energy, I could go more in depth on this amongst plenty of other issues
Do you really, truly, sincerely believe that Palin has more experience than Obama and is better qualified to be president? Because she was on the city council and mayor of a 7,000 person town and governor of 600,000 person state for 2 yrs? And don't give me the "she has executive experience cause she was a governor" argument cause then you're saying she's more qualified than McCain and she should be the top of the ticket. I also don't buy that "she took on her own corrupt party so she's a reformer" BS - Cause the large amount of ethic complaints she's had including being found guilty abusing her authority in troopergate proves she's no reformer, and she only took on her own party cause she saw a chance to use their corruption against them and get herself ahead to a higher position in govt.
Obama has 3 years as an amazing community organizer, first black president of the Harvard law review, 12 years as a constitutional law professor, 8 years as a state senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, 4 years in the US senate representing 13 million people and sponsoring 131 bills, and while in the senate he served on the foreign affairs, environmental and public works, and veterans affairs committees. On top of that he's run the largest scale campaign in history with the most amazing ground game ever seen, and the most disciplined, focused and organized campaign ever, that even Bill Oreilly called the best campaign he'd ever seen. He's shown leadership, judgment, skill, an ability to choose the best advisers, and an amazing talent of inspiring people to actually take action!
I really don't see how someone can truly believe that Palin has more experience and is more qualified than Obama to be president, unless they're without all the facts or just an idiot.
Obama wants to tax and punish the rich more and claim to give tax cuts to the middle-class. He wants the rich to "give." How is that not socialism? He wants to shorten the gap between the rich and the middle-class with his tax plan.
And his tax plan doesn't even get through to people. He is not giving tax CUTS. He is giving tax CREDIT. And that DOES NOT equal lower tax rates at all.
I mean, so many people just go to Barack's homepage and look at his tax plan and don't do any research beyond that. I mean, some quick ass Google searches does wonders.
Have you missed all of tenbaggers posts? I'll let him deal with your articles cause he'll probably give you an essay with in depth tax analysis.
The attack that Obama's plan will make the middle class pay more is ridiculous.
He wants the RICH TO PAY THE TAXES THEY PAID DURING CLINTON - THEY DID JUST FINE THEN! And he's not raising taxes, he's letting a temporary tax cut EXPIRE! He's not redistributing wealth, he's making a fairer tax system that will also help get the economy going.
InnovativeYogis.com
1
TenBagger United States. Oct 31 2008 23:40. Posts 2018
TheHuHu,
You claim "Obama's Tax Plan does not help the middle-class." That is just so wrong. In fact, it is quite ignorant and I find it hard to believe that any intelligent individual can believe that assertion. If you want to claim that Obama is "socialist", well I would disagree with the term "socialist" but I cannot say that you are absolutely wrong. If you want to claim that Obama is inexperienced, again I would disagree but I can see your point of view and I cannot completely rule out your opinion. However, claiming that Obama's tax plan does not help the middle class is 100% wrong and that is a fact.
and you support your view with bullshit websites that misrepresent basic facts. Listen, if you google something, you can find websites that supports the most ridiculous point of view. That fact that you found some outlier website with zero credibiltiy does nothing to support your claim.
is the most ignorant thing that I've read in quite some time. I'm quite familiar with US tax policy and I am a small business owner myself. That article claims that Obama wants to increase the marginal individual tax rate to "~51%". That is pure ignorance right there and by you believing that BS shows that you have blinders on. If care about the truth, why don't you take the time to read the actual primary sources. Try reading the link I posted
As I mentioned to daut earlier in this thread, although I am a die hard liberal and huge Obama supporter, I can see many scenarios where it would be in one's best interest to vote for McCain. If Daut were to vote McCain, not that he would care, but I would view his vote as rational and intelligent. If a middle class voter were to vote McCain because they believe your assertion that "Obama's Tax Plan does not help the middle-class." then that is pure ignorance and you've basically been duped by the republican propoganda machine.
1
TenBagger United States. Oct 31 2008 23:43. Posts 2018
On October 31 2008 22:29 k2o4 wrote:
Have you missed all of tenbaggers posts? I'll let him deal with your articles cause he'll probably give you an essay with in depth tax analysis.
The attack that Obama's plan will make the middle class pay more is ridiculous.
He wants the RICH TO PAY THE TAXES THEY PAID DURING CLINTON - THEY DID JUST FINE THEN! And he's not raising taxes, he's letting a temporary tax cut EXPIRE! He's not redistributing wealth, he's making a fairer tax system that will also help get the economy going.
well, just because I support obama does not mean that I can deny the truth. Obama is redistributing wealth. Of course they can't use that term because this country is full of HuHu's that have this ridiculous fear of socialism. But any income tax is a redistribution of wealth and the more progressive it is, the more redistribution occurs. He is letting a temporary tax cut expire and the fact is that bush has taken it so far to one extreme, that even with obama's plan, the US tax code is still regressive by historical and global standards.
whats wrong with socialism? Its just a word people use to get a knee jerk cold war era reaction. Socialism isnt a bad thing. Socialism doesnt work, but capitalism doesnt either. You need to blur the borders.
ok first off let me make something totally clear, again
I am not a Democrap, nor a Repukelican
both sides have their rights, their wrongs, and right now both main nominees royally suck imo
yes I do believe of the two main noms, in the end the McCain camp is far the lesser evil as the role of the government goes because
fundamentally I think government should be decentralized
Obama would definitely create a bigger government (ooooh but I better not say the soc word)
at least McCain is honest about the middle east and has taken a stance on views - not flip flopping everything to fit the time and place til he has total control to do w/e the hell he really wants to do
As for..
On October 31 2008 20:32 k2o4 wrote:
Do you really, truly, sincerely believe that Palin has more experience than Obama and is better qualified to be president? Because she was on the city council and mayor of a 7,000 person town and governor of 600,000 person state for 2 yrs? And don't give me the "she has executive experience cause she was a governor" argument cause then you're saying she's more qualified than McCain and she should be the top of the ticket. I also don't buy that "she took on her own corrupt party so she's a reformer" BS - Cause the large amount of ethic complaints she's had including being found guilty abusing her authority in troopergate proves she's no reformer, and she only took on her own party cause she saw a chance to use their corruption against them and get herself ahead to a higher position in govt.
Obama has 3 years as an amazing community organizer, first black president of the Harvard law review, 12 years as a constitutional law professor, 8 years as a state senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, 4 years in the US senate representing 13 million people and sponsoring 131 bills, and while in the senate he served on the foreign affairs, environmental and public works, and veterans affairs committees. On top of that he's run the largest scale campaign in history with the most amazing ground game ever seen, and the most disciplined, focused and organized campaign ever, that even Bill Oreilly called the best campaign he'd ever seen. He's shown leadership, judgment, skill, an ability to choose the best advisers, and an amazing talent of inspiring people to actually take action!
I really don't see how someone can truly believe that Palin has more experience and is more qualified than Obama to be president, unless they're without all the facts or just an idiot.
why would I bother finding links, refinding articles and videos, or spend any energy digging up info that I've seen/read or heard for u when it's obvious ur dead set on Obama?
besides the 98% chance of me in the end leveling myself in ur concrete world, what would be achieved?
I mean even here in this quote alone ur all but saying your mind is totally and completely made up, and not to tell u anything because you already know the answer etc
like u and ORiley said, the Obama camp has campaigned this near perfection; it's very easy right now to keep Obama in a good light no matter the argument - that should be scary and set off warning bells in itself
so...if to u the grass is the most green on ur side then there's really no point is there
your not going to take value in anything that's said on that opposite side, the Republican side (which again I am not on)
...simply put you are going to see what you want to see no matter how much sifting and pointing I do
I feel I would have an easier time trying to convince Bill Gates to invest in Mac or Linux than to try and convince u or some of the Obama lovers here that what ur swallowing is bad and to vote third party or McCain
seems really pointless for me to do either so if ur needing to know, and want to know something bad enough, u'll find it
u'll one day realize ur eating bs w/ a smile on ur face
but u know, in fact I constantly wonder why I even bother with anything here at all as it seems all I do is offend or am written off/ignored right off the bat as an idiot (maybe cuz the stakes I play?)
thank god I've biiiiiiiiiiiig shoulders ^^
hmm I used to lurk...maybe I ramble here for the lurkers
dunno
all I do know is actions speak louder than words
and all ur actions I've seen here k2o4 say ur deadset on ur homeboy Obama!
god we all just know he is here for u
heh ok live and learn
if the *federal government providing everything* is really what u want deep down k2o4, then u will never have the wake up call that will surely come to u one day otherwise
and I'm happy for u, but me and u arguing any other details is futile
---
TenBagger plz don't take offense to this when I ask you have u ever been outside the US for longer than 2 months in one time?
The probability of someone watching you is proportional to the stupidity of your action.
On October 31 2008 22:29 k2o4 wrote:
Have you missed all of tenbaggers posts? I'll let him deal with your articles cause he'll probably give you an essay with in depth tax analysis.
The attack that Obama's plan will make the middle class pay more is ridiculous.
He wants the RICH TO PAY THE TAXES THEY PAID DURING CLINTON - THEY DID JUST FINE THEN! And he's not raising taxes, he's letting a temporary tax cut EXPIRE! He's not redistributing wealth, he's making a fairer tax system that will also help get the economy going.
well, just because I support obama does not mean that I can deny the truth. Obama is redistributing wealth. Of course they can't use that term because this country is full of HuHu's that have this ridiculous fear of socialism. But any income tax is a redistribution of wealth and the more progressive it is, the more redistribution occurs. He is letting a temporary tax cut expire and the fact is that bush has taken it so far to one extreme, that even with obama's plan, the US tax code is still regressive by historical and global standards.
True, this fear of socialism is getting rediculous. Many americans think socialism is the same as communism, and they were taught to fear that during the cold war era. But infact you have many "socialist" aspects over there already, socialism like practised in europe is not real socialism but a mixture of socilism and capitalism. Communist would call us capitalists and capitalist would call us communists. Americans have socialism already, they are just not as socialist as we are over here, I wish they could drop that stupid fear of the word.
Some are saying socialism is like stealing money from the rich, I would like to know where does the money/wealth come from in the first place?
I started out with nothing and I still got most of it left
1
fakeshaver United States. Nov 01 2008 01:01. Posts 1313
Americans do not have fear of the word communism and socialism. The polls have shown all of that campaigning from Mccain did not help at all.
1
TheHuHu3 United States. Nov 01 2008 02:07. Posts 5544
On October 31 2008 22:40 TenBagger wrote:
TheHuHu,
You claim "Obama's Tax Plan does not help the middle-class." That is just so wrong. In fact, it is quite ignorant and I find it hard to believe that any intelligent individual can believe that assertion. If you want to claim that Obama is "socialist", well I would disagree with the term "socialist" but I cannot say that you are absolutely wrong. If you want to claim that Obama is inexperienced, again I would disagree but I can see your point of view and I cannot completely rule out your opinion. However, claiming that Obama's tax plan does not help the middle class is 100% wrong and that is a fact.
and you support your view with bullshit websites that misrepresent basic facts. Listen, if you google something, you can find websites that supports the most ridiculous point of view. That fact that you found some outlier website with zero credibiltiy does nothing to support your claim.
is the most ignorant thing that I've read in quite some time. I'm quite familiar with US tax policy and I am a small business owner myself. That article claims that Obama wants to increase the marginal individual tax rate to "~51%". That is pure ignorance right there and by you believing that BS shows that you have blinders on. If care about the truth, why don't you take the time to read the actual primary sources. Try reading the link I posted
As I mentioned to daut earlier in this thread, although I am a die hard liberal and huge Obama supporter, I can see many scenarios where it would be in one's best interest to vote for McCain. If Daut were to vote McCain, not that he would care, but I would view his vote as rational and intelligent. If a middle class voter were to vote McCain because they believe your assertion that "Obama's Tax Plan does not help the middle-class." then that is pure ignorance and you've basically been duped by the republican propoganda machine.
AOL is a misleading website? News to me.
See, the thing is, if I find articles from "credible" websites that say the same exact thing I posted earlier, you will disregard it. Why? Because it won't change your position whatsoever. So why make a rant about my sources when you very well know there are several websites with "credentials" that support that?
TheHuHu4 coming soon :)
1
TenBagger United States. Nov 01 2008 02:47. Posts 2018
let's see here, your main point is that "Obama's Tax Plan does not help the middle-class."
Have you even read the article? The main point of the article is the following:
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review's editorial focuses on Sen. Obama's claim that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans, echoing an analysis performed by the Washington Times...
...Sen. Obama's economics plan centers on his claim that he'll cut taxes for 95 percent of American workers. Left unsaid is that to accomplish this, he'll have to levy a massive tax increase against the other 5 percent who already pay nearly 60 percent of all taxes.
You do realize that the above point SUPPORTS the claim that Obama's tax plan HELPS the middle class.
Now that I've read your stuff, why don't you read the article that I posted. Why don't you read some primary sources about obama's tax plan such as the brookings report that I linked or obama's own website where he outlines his policy in depth. Maybe then we can carry on an intelligent conversation.
1
TenBagger United States. Nov 01 2008 02:53. Posts 2018
seriously, if you dislike obama, that's fine. there are many ways to attack him. but saying that his tax policy hurts the middle class is so obviously false.
if you say that obama will suck as commander in chief, I can disagree but I can't disprove it. But when you say "Obama's Tax Plan does not help the middle-class." that is something I can disprove. For gods sake even your own source that you linked basically said that.
1
TenBagger United States. Nov 01 2008 02:57. Posts 2018
To All LP members from around the world,
I present TheHuHu as exhibit A of the success of the republican propoganda machine and how they were able to convince someone who read the following:
Sen. Obama's economics plan centers on his claim that he'll cut taxes for 95 percent of American workers. Left unsaid is that to accomplish this, he'll have to levy a massive tax increase against the other 5 percent who already pay nearly 60 percent of all taxes.
On October 31 2008 22:29 k2o4 wrote:
Have you missed all of tenbaggers posts? I'll let him deal with your articles cause he'll probably give you an essay with in depth tax analysis.
The attack that Obama's plan will make the middle class pay more is ridiculous.
He wants the RICH TO PAY THE TAXES THEY PAID DURING CLINTON - THEY DID JUST FINE THEN! And he's not raising taxes, he's letting a temporary tax cut EXPIRE! He's not redistributing wealth, he's making a fairer tax system that will also help get the economy going.
well, just because I support obama does not mean that I can deny the truth. Obama is redistributing wealth. Of course they can't use that term because this country is full of HuHu's that have this ridiculous fear of socialism. But any income tax is a redistribution of wealth and the more progressive it is, the more redistribution occurs. He is letting a temporary tax cut expire and the fact is that bush has taken it so far to one extreme, that even with obama's plan, the US tax code is still regressive by historical and global standards.
True, this fear of socialism is getting rediculous. Many americans think socialism is the same as communism, and they were taught to fear that during the cold war era. But infact you have many "socialist" aspects over there already, socialism like practised in europe is not real socialism but a mixture of socilism and capitalism. Communist would call us capitalists and capitalist would call us communists. Americans have socialism already, they are just not as socialist as we are over here, I wish they could drop that stupid fear of the word.
Some are saying socialism is like stealing money from the rich, I would like to know where does the money/wealth come from in the first place?
part of the reason for the american fear of socialism is that american dictionaries pretty much equate socialism to communism, while british english dictionaries have a much more sensible and correct understanding of the word. so well, to americans socialism really does equate communism, while to europeans it is closer to equating social-democracy. (you certainly have europeans with a similar irrational fear of the word tho, its just not deeply ingrained in our culture.)
why would I bother finding links, refinding articles and videos, or spend any energy digging up info that I've seen/read or heard for u when it's obvious ur dead set on Obama?
besides the 98% chance of me in the end leveling myself in ur concrete world, what would be achieved?
I mean even here in this quote alone ur all but saying your mind is totally and completely made up, and not to tell u anything because you already know the answer etc
like u and ORiley said, the Obama camp has campaigned this near perfection; it's very easy right now to keep Obama in a good light no matter the argument - that should be scary and set off warning bells in itself
so...if to u the grass is the most green on ur side then there's really no point is there
your not going to take value in anything that's said on that opposite side, the Republican side (which again I am not on)
...simply put you are going to see what you want to see no matter how much sifting and pointing I do
I feel I would have an easier time trying to convince Bill Gates to invest in Mac or Linux than to try and convince u or some of the Obama lovers here that what ur swallowing is bad and to vote third party or McCain
seems really pointless for me to do either so if ur needing to know, and want to know something bad enough, u'll find it
u'll one day realize ur eating bs w/ a smile on ur face
but u know, in fact I constantly wonder why I even bother with anything here at all as it seems all I do is offend or am written off/ignored right off the bat as an idiot (maybe cuz the stakes I play?)
thank god I've biiiiiiiiiiiig shoulders ^^
hmm I used to lurk...maybe I ramble here for the lurkers
dunno
all I do know is actions speak louder than words
and all ur actions I've seen here k2o4 say ur deadset on ur homeboy Obama!
god we all just know he is here for u
heh ok live and learn
if the *federal government providing everything* is really what u want deep down k2o4, then u will never have the wake up call that will surely come to u one day otherwise
and I'm happy for u, but me and u arguing any other details is futile
---
TenBagger plz don't take offense to this when I ask you have u ever been outside the US for longer than 2 months in one time?
Your crazy rambling answer there was basically the same as this guys:
Anyway, I'm totally glad to listen to the other side. But when people say that Palin is "obviously more experienced than Obama" I'm blown away cause ALL THE FACTS say that she isn't. I think you need a very slanted POV to believe that the facts add up to Palin being more experienced. Let's stay on the point here.
Pretty much every single one of the my best friends is a Republican who supported bush. I've listened to the other side non-stop and I am still friends with them cause they know how to accept facts and I do the same. In terms of world view we are very different. So if you want to give me some FACTS I'll gladly accept them. Give me a logical argument, not a bunch of rambling rants.
Lastly, I do NOT want the Federal Government providing everything, and OBAMA DOES NOT WANT THAT EITHER. This is a reason I like him. I do want the Federal Govt providing SOME THINGS though. I like the idea of being a citizen as being in a club. You pay membership dues and you get benefits. One of those benefits should be high quality education, especially since a well educated generation of youth will lead to a more prosperous country overall and help EVERYBODY. I definitely don't want the Govt to do everything for us, but I'm fine with it doing some things. We've been a mix of capitalism and socialism for a long time and it has worked very well. Social security and medicare are 2 of the most popular govt programs, and they're "socialist" in nature.
This idea that Obama is going to create some huge govt that will take over everything is another republican scare tactic and it's sad to see people stupid enough to fall for it. I agree that he will increase govt a bit, but honestly it's not very much at all, and it's in very key important areas that we SHOULD have more govt involvement.
wow, the clip in k2o4s posts was one of the funniest things ive seen in the last few months
also i will never understand the way of thinking of all those "omg socialism!" americans.
if you think that rich people paying more is bad your a egoistic idiot. if you think that playing an minimal amount of taxes more is isnt worth helping the overall state of your country and the people that had less luck then you in life then please think about what a egoistic bastard you are.
its like " oh look, candidate no1 just gave me 500$! thats great for me! i vote him! maybe he wants to kill evry homeless and eats babies but that doesnt matter for me since i'm not homeless and hes not eating my baby! "
jfyi :
i live in europe. i pay taxes and from that every single one here gets health care for "free" whenever he needs. if paying 3% (random number) more taxes saves peoples lifes i am glad and proud to pay it.
I agree penner that you should obviously vote for the guy who will do a good job, not for the guy who happens to favor yourself
voting is something you do for ideological reasons anyway, your vote doesn't really have any impact you just do it because it's right
for that reason daut i can't believe that you would keep yourself from voting just because you'll lose 100k or whatever the amount is if mccain wins.. if you go out there and vote obama, and it sounds like that's what you really want to do, then the -ev of that is negligable...
LMAO. Some people in this thread are more ignorant and out of touch with reality than wobbly!
@k204 and TenBagger: Dont waste your time arguing with these people. They CLEARLY have no idea what it going on. And they dont listen/think. They will NEVER change their mind. They close their eyes to all the evidence you represent to them and this is clear by them not reading/listening anything you are posting in response.
Let them go on their own way. Many people dont learn by listening and looking. They have to get fucked to learn. Thats how it works. Look at Neilly and his BR managment.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
then she ask me my qualities n bad qualities. so i tell her truth and she kinda laugh at me lol. then i ask her for hers and she gtg. i think it going ok. -Floofy
0
p-halt United States. Nov 02 2008 16:37. Posts 345
its gonna be super scary if the whole U.S. office is a bunch of dumbass democrats...obama is gonna wreck US...and i love how you guys are all bashing palin...how much more experience about poltics does Obama have...rofl
On November 02 2008 15:37 p-halt wrote:
its gonna be super scary if the whole U.S. office is a bunch of dumbass democrats...obama is gonna wreck US...and i love how you guys are all bashing palin...how much more experience about poltics does Obama have...rofl
Main reason I bash Pallin are the same exact reason I like Obama and It has NOTHING to do with their experience.
Pallin thinks abbortion should be illigal even if it dangours the life of the mother.
Pallin thinks humans has ZERO effect on Global warming
Pallin can not name a single paper.
Palling thinks gay marrage should be unconstitutional!
Palin thinks she can see russia from Alaska.
Paling doesnt know the name of the PM of Canada.
Palin...............................................
These statements are all pointing to one fact------> Palling is very very dumb and ignorant!
She is only surviving by spreading random bullshits about non-related stuff and confusing people who doesnt have half a brain to think(which sadly represents more than %50 of the population.) I see people like Pallin who are HUGE suck ups in real life and in school. They usually ride on that group of people who know alot but dont give a damn about the managment and politics. She is exactly representing the people who go and sleep with the TA to pass the course instead of getting an education.
On the other hand Obama is a person who clearly thinks before acting. Who is smart and knows what and when to talk and when to shut up. He tells people stuff they want to hear to get elected. He has good education and he is very intelligence. Im not saying the guy is a saint. Im just saying the guy is super intelligence.
in very short. I prefer Obama over Pallin because Obama is smarter than Pallin. And he is well educated.
On the other hand Pallin is very very below average intelligence and she is very ignorant.
Im comming from a country who has retards in power. And trust me when you want to elect someone into power the number one criteria should be inteligence. You want someone open minded who can think and analyze the issues. You don not want someone who refer to Bibel for make decisions in the 21 century. You DO NOT want someone who has his mind already setup(by lessons in some 2000 year old book or by advices from some high school graduate) when a new issues surface in the world.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
Do you guys really belive than if someone has to make life/death decision for you you would trust Palin over Obama?? Cause ultimatly this is what president does. Not maybe for exactly you but for millions of people out there.
I wouldnt be suprised if you say yes. After finding out how ignorant some high stakes players are(wobbly). I would be suprised to know if you guys are equally ignorant(probably even less than him)
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
ROFL capaneo way to make a fool out of yourself... you can actually see Russia from Alaska in their closest spot duh. her response was hillarious because its stupidly irrelevant, it would be like if the Major of Mexico, Sonora says that he can see the US from there, and that somehow turns him into a guru of foreign relations.
On November 02 2008 16:44 Baal wrote:
ROFL capaneo way to make a fool out of yourself... you can actually see Russia from Alaska in their closest spot duh. her response was hillarious because its stupidly irrelevant, it would be like if the Major of Mexico, Sonora says that he can see the US from there, and that somehow turns him into a guru of foreign relations.
Why you are trying to troll anyway? You know that I know that. As a matter of fact she can not even SEE Russia from anywhere she has ever been in Alaska. Try to make fun of ignorant people like Wobley and Maynard if you have too much time at your hand!
But the whole point is that she is retarded. And Obama is not. And no matter what they ask her of any matter. Just saying that you can see Russia from Alaska is just retarded. Beause even if you can see russia you will probably see some gray mountain in the background that is Russia. So if you see a picture of Kremlin on the internet you are probably the most qualified foreign affair consultant in her book.
But im not even talking about that. Im saying she is retarded and very very ignorant and should not be trusted to manage a big sum of assests and lives.
Who cares if the next door gays are gonna get married.
Who really gives a damn if the pregnant girl two blocks away get an abbortion. I dont even give a damn if the polar bears extinct or not(this one is close for me since I like the bears!)
What matters is that when I go out how many non-educated retards I have to talk to when I wanna do something?
How many retards out there should I convince to do something?
OBV im all for sending all the poor people to college on my expense as long as I can afford it. It will make my life easier at the end.
Ofcourse I want poor people to have enough money to go and spend it in bars and get laid and gamble it around. And fuck yeah I will pay for it. As long as I know that my child is not going to get kidnapped by some jobless unwealthy idiot.
This is called civilization. People are living together and ones problem is everyones problem.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
I just gotta back cap really quick in saying that while, YES, there IS AN ISLAND on the fartherst northwest part of alaska that can see russia, PALIN HAS NEVER BEEN THERE, so she's never seen russia from alaska. Also, even if she DID, that obviously is completely meaningless. All the people on that island can see Russian and I'd say that they are almost certainly not foreign policy czars.
Contact Users: 850 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 15:42
United States. Oct 30 2008 16:34. Posts 2598
,
,
,
,