[gordoUSA]

Like I have been trying to say, read for yourself, don't take for truth what those with a very set agenda WANT YOU TO BELIEVE. Use your own mind.

Another report published by the GAO (Government Accounting Office) released around 2 weeks ago stated, that 2/3 of all US corporations pay NO income tax, however, many of these corporations are start up companies, or small corporations, that make no money. But of the corporations that DO pay income taxes, the average rate is 17%. Foreign corporations operating in the USA pay on the average 20% less than American corporations.

Depending on the state where you live, a worker making minimum wage, has on average, 22% of his check deducted each week for taxes. (Depending on total excemptions claimed and the state and locality where he is earning wages.)

[marylandkw]

http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/ There are links to crediable sources at the bottom of that page. Sure, rich people will pay more taxes. Warren Buffet pays less tax than his secretary, sound fair?

IMHO, we have the largest deficit of history right now, tax cuts will not make that go away.

Hey GTR, maybe you could make Snopes your home page? That way you can check it before you post.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp

[HWD]

Yeah, sure...believe a liberal. Rich people will pay more taxes? Yeah. Go back to the Clinton years. "Rich" people were defined as people making as little as $50,000 a year! Get over yourselves, libs.

Last night put you on notice that the end of the Osama/Biden ticket is eminent.

Also, the big article posted above, came from the Associated Press...now there's an unbiased news source... :roll:

[marylandkw]

Originally Posted by HWD

Yeah, sure...believe a liberal. Rich people will pay more taxes? Yeah. Go back to the Clinton years. "Rich" people were defined as people making as little as $50,000 a year! Get over yourselves, libs.

Really? Care to provide any proof? Or is wild speculation your style?

Originally Posted by HWD

Last night put you on notice that the end of the Osama/Biden ticket is eminent.

Also, the big article posted above, came from the Associated Press...now there's an unbiased news source... :roll:

Seriously, is it impossible to have a debate about politics without insults?

I challenge you to prove one thing in the AP article as inaccurate.

IMHO, last night did not put me on notice. It just showed me how desperate Sen McCain is by selecting a grossly under qualified running mate.

And as far as you calling Sen. Obama "Osama" how clever. Let me ask you, did you get to choose your name? No? Huh, neither did he. It is OK to disagree, it does not make either of us less of an American.

[GTR SILVER]

Originally Posted by HWD

Yeah, sure...believe a liberal. Rich people will pay more taxes? Yeah. Go back to the Clinton years. "Rich" people were defined as people making as little as $50,000 a year! Get over yourselves, libs.

Last night put you on notice that the end of the Osama/Biden ticket is eminent.

Also, the big article posted above, came from the Associated Press...now there's an unbiased news source... :roll:

here ....here......... :wink:
dont bother..........they live in there own little world......they are not worth it....... :?........SOPHISTRY.... 8) 8) 8) ... The controversial method of an opponent, distinguished
from one's own by superior insincerity and fooling. This method is
that of the later Sophists, a Grecian sect of philosophers who began
by teaching wisdom, prudence, science, art and, in brief, whatever men
ought to know, but lost themselves in a maze of quibbles and a fog of
words.

[gordoUSA]

As a matter of fact, Warren Buffet, one of my favorite people, was against the Bush tax cut. He exact quote was "why should I pay less than my secretary?" He went on to say, that givng him a $110 MILLION tax break would do nothing to stimulate the economy as he would not actually spend one thin dime of the money, but instead re-invest it in good sound stocks.
This interview with Warren Buffet was broadcast on TV.

But again the Republicans are trying to hang the tag of "tax and spend" on the Democrats. What the Republicans fail to tell you, it was the Republican Senate that let the balanced budget amendment expire in 1998, then failed to pass 1 single economic package the last 2 years of Clinton's term. They were far more interested in spending $60 million discrediting him personally and therefore his policies than they were about the good of the economy. Instead they, the Republicans and Democrats too, went on a spending spree for 8 straight years! The Republican lead Congress with a Republican President racked up record deficits each and every year. G. Bush has not vetoed 1 single spending bill that passed his desk. The same was true when he was Gov. of Texas, he never quit spending "our" money. But he did give 3 tax breaks to his oil buddies, and has again given tax breaks to the oil industry while President.
So the tag of "Tax and spend," can hardly be hung in the Democrats, it is now more correctly the "spend and spend" Republicans.
Interestingly, whenever tax reform is brought up, such as a "flat tax" a "national sales tax" it is the Repulicans that are totally against it. Why? Because they will have to pay more.
But true, our country is in deep financial trouble, and if the spending doesn't get under control fast, and I mean fast, there will be larger tax increases across the board to keep our country solvent. Whoever is elected President is going to have to make some very serious financial decisions and they are not going to be popular.

[Ridge Runner]

As a matter of fact, Warren Buffet, one of my favorite people, was against the Bush tax cut. He exact quote was "why should I pay less than my secretary?" He went on to say, that givng him a $110 MILLION tax break would do nothing to stimulate the economy as he would not actually spend one thin dime of the money, but instead re-invest it in good sound stocks. This interview with Warren Buffet was broadcast on TV.

This is a big part of why I think the folks on the "left" just don't get it. That $110 million WAS spent. Maybe not directly by Warren Buffett but by the company whose stock he bought. That money was then spent on growth ( jobs ) or updated machines ( more jobs for the machine makes ).

[GMAN]

Unless our leaders begin to reduce the size of government we won't be able to support it before long.

[RebelDarlin]

Originally Posted by GMAN

Unless our leaders begin to reduce the size of government we won't be able to support it before long.

With the size of the deficit we have, I'd say we can't support it now.

[Windwalker]

THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.

Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.

He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.

Now, use a little common sense, if you have any. In another thread, a poster quoted an article from "TECHNOLOGY REVIEW" where experts said that a car (with an internal combustion engine) fueled with hydrogen would produce MORE CARBON DIOXIDE than current cars fueled with gasoline. The first law of physics states that you can not create or destroy matter. In order to produce more co2, you would have to be introducing MORE carbon molecules than with gasoline. But, hydrogen does not contain any. IMPOSSIBLE.

From what I've seen of Obama's tax plan, the same holds true. If it were following the laws of physics, it would be impossible. Believe only half of what you read, because the so-called experts can be just as biased as the news media.