What grade would you give?

Rate George W. Bush

  • Excelent: A

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Above average: B

    Votes: 8 33.3%
  • Average: C

    Votes: 8 33.3%
  • Below average: D

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Fail: F

    Votes: 8 33.3%

  • Total voters
    24

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Just as in the welfare thread, the folks who are providing all the money are wrongly being labeled as receiving welfare when in fact they are only receiving a portion of what was taken from them as a refund. It is not welfare as they are the original earner. A return of one's own property is not welfare.

welfare, noun: financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
This is the EXPANSION of WELFARE, and also Socialism

October 22, 2008

Obama’s 95 Percent Tax Cut? 100 Percent Not True

(Ron Christie)
@ 8:51 am
The Hill’s Pundits Blog Obama?s 95 Percent Tax Cut? 100 Percent Not True

Facts have a pesky way of serving as a fly in the ointment to a perfect story or solution.

To wit: I continue to watch the Democratic candidate for president continue to say that he will provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans. Let me repeat: He will provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans if his plan is enacted.

This sounds great, but nearly 40 percent of Americans do not pay income tax at all. Providing a tax cut to those who don't pay federal income taxes sounds like wealth re-distribution to me — from those who have it to those who don't. The Obama camp immediately retorts that people who don't pay federal income tax do, in fact, pay payroll taxes — they should get a form of tax relief to alleviate this burden.

Fine, but the FICA taxes we pay go to fund the Social Security Trust Fund. Does Obama truly propose to provide checks to nearly 40 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax while also giving them a rebate on the payroll taxes that ostensibly will fund Social Security for current (not future) retirees? If so, where will the additional revenue to support these money giveaways come from?

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) shed a bit of light on this topic earlier this week when he said that taxes must be raised on the richest Americans and that deficit spending will result in the short term. So there you have it: Obama will provide a cash rebate to those who do not pay federal income tax, funded by those who do pay federal income tax.

To make up the difference in lost revenue, Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, wants to increase taxes on those who pay a majority of federal income tax while also raising the size of the deficit to fuel additional government spending.

These are the sad facts that many in the media seem uninterested in reporting or discussing. The American electorate best wake up to this reality or get ready to tighten their belts, as the taxman cometh shortly to their door, asking for more of their hard-earned money.

Just so not to post strictly from a Blog:

Washington Times - Obama tax cut 'refunds' those who don't pay

Obama tax cut 'refunds' those who don't pay
Critics call it 'welfare'

Donald Lambro
Monday, October 13, 2008

Barack Obama says he will give 95 percent of all American workers a tax cut but does not mention that his plan would send checks to tens of millions of tax filers who pay no personal income taxes - payments that critics say look "suspiciously like welfare."

Mr. Obama's campaign promise, which he has repeated in his speeches and in the presidential debates, stems from his "Making Work Pay" tax cut that will give a $500 refundable tax credit to every worker or $1,000 to each working couple. But because this provision in his economic-recovery plan is "refundable," a large number of middle- to lower-income workers who have no income-tax liability after taking tax credits and deductions the that Internal Revenue Service allows, will be given the equivalent of the tax cut in the form of direct payments from the U.S. Treasury - funded by higher-income taxpayers.

Because the IRS says that nearly 46 million tax filers - one-third of all filers - had no tax liability in 2006, there is the question of how millions of Americans can receive an income "tax cut" when they pay no taxes.

"It's got to raise alarm bells when you claim you are going to cut taxes for 95 percent of working families when more than 40 percent of them pay no income taxes," said Phil Kerpen, policy director at Americans for Prosperity, a grass-roots free-market advocacy group.

"What he's really talking about doing is mailing a check, and to me, that looks more like a welfare program than the kind of real tax relief that would encourage work, savings and investments," Mr. Kerpen said.

The freshman senator's campaign Web site defines the Democrat's tax-relief proposal only in terms of offering workers "middle class tax cuts" and "for 10 million low-income Americans, will completely eliminate their federal income taxes."

But in a recent research paper on federal taxpayers, Scott Hodge, president of the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, said, "There will be 47 million tax returns with zero-income tax liability in 2009 under current law. That's one-third of all tax returns and those 47 million tax returns represent 96 million individuals."

Mr. Obama repeatedly says in his speeches that almost all workers and "working families" will benefit from his "tax cuts." In last week's second presidential debate with Sen. John McCain in Nashville, Tenn., he said, "What I want to do is provide a middle-class tax cut to 95 percent of working Americans."

At another point in that debate, he enlarged the universe of his tax-cut recipients, saying, "I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans."

Investor's Business Daily pointed out earlier this month that Mr. Obama's " 'working families' does not include all households. Throw in singles, retirees, students and the unemployed, and the share getting some tax-related benefit is a good deal less."
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
It's called "spreading the wealth", Cheri. Remember Joe the plummer getting that out of him? What do you really think that meant?

And as far as the "giveaway" you talk about the rich getting, why shouldn't ppl be able to keep what they earn? Why should the government take it from us? The more we make, the higher percentage we pay... I don't think that's fair. I don't care how greedy you think those ppl are for wanting to keep the money they earned. The fact is, they earned it.
 

flattop40

Expert Expediter
Take a little 'gander' at the posts about Obama, and remind me: who is guilty of the childish name calling here? (Hint: it's NOT the "liberals"!)
[/QUOTE]

Hmmmm talk about name calling. Take a look at your buddies rlent and aristotle.

You can pull up EVERY post I have ever put on this site and you will NEVER see me call someone a name because you are right it is childish.
 

mjolnir131

Veteran Expediter
You are correct, the Constitution was written to set Limits on the power of the Federal Government. State have rights but WE and ONLY WE hold the power. The people. The reason the Second Amendment was written. Our system was set up with many 'checks and balances" The "Armed Citizen" is the ultimate check and balance. The "Founders" knew that Government will "Always" fall into tyranny, like it is now, and put that Amendment in to insure that, WE the PEOPLE could counter-act that tyranny. Health care and all that other fluff is not worth your freedom. Nothing is. Layoutshooter

the states lost that battle in 1865
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
It's called "spreading the wealth", Cheri. Remember Joe the plummer getting that out of him?
'Joe the Plumber was proven to be a fraud. What do you really think that meant?
I hope it meant an end to government collusion and sponsorship of corporate cheating (registered offshore, don't pay taxes, paying huge chunks of money to avoid paying any legal liability claims [a specialty of insurance conglomerates], allowing stockholders to apply relentless pressure for more profits that results in lost jobs at the bottom of the wage scale, while preserving astronomic compensation at the top [especially nice when the corp is asking for a bailout, or filing bankruptcy] and the various subsidies [agribusiness is a great example] given to the already wealthy, with zero benefit to consumers who do pay taxes, not to mention those who can't afford decent housing, food, or medical care.
And as far as the "giveaway" you talk about the rich getting, why shouldn't ppl be able to keep what they earn?
Does ConAgra "earn" the tremendous government subsidies it collects? [Meant to assist the small farmer, uh huh] Why should the government take it from us?
Because they have the power to levy taxes, fees, fines, and surcharges, duh. The more we make, the higher percentage we pay...
Until you get to the point that you can afford to pay professionals to find loopholes, create tax shelters, or just 'cook the books', while those who can't afford such help have no choice but to pay up in full.
I don't think that's fair. I don't care how greedy you think those ppl are for wanting to keep the money they earned. The fact is, they earned it.
If corporate executives earned their pay, why are so many in such financial trouble? Why did insurance executives demand tort reform to shield them from liability lawsuits? ['Frivolous lawsuits' were the battle cry for that one, yeah, right. If frivolous lawsuits are a problem, either prescreen them, or charge attorneys who file them, huh?]
America has become a gold mine for the greedy, and daily misery for the unfortunate citizens who cannot find decent employment, afford decent housing, health care, education, and everything that makes up the American Dream.
It's real easy to say that poor people are lazy, and the wealthy deserve what they have been given, but I don't believe either is true, for the most part.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
America has become a gold mine for the greedy, and daily misery for the unfortunate citizens who cannot find decent employment, afford decent housing, health care, education, and everything that makes up the American Dream.

So what you are saying is that not everyone has the same chance to make something of his or her life huh?

Oh and please define Greed as you use it? And how much is too much?? Who get to decide?
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I DO I DO!!!! Waving my hands wildly over my head!!! Greed is practiced by EVERYONE who wants to steal my money from me. Polititions, Welfare bums, Under-acheivers etc etc. Layoutshooter
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
If corporate executives earned their pay, why are so many in such financial trouble? Why did insurance executives demand tort reform to shield them from liability lawsuits? ['Frivolous lawsuits' were the battle cry for that one, yeah, right. If frivolous lawsuits are a problem, either prescreen them, or charge attorneys who file them, huh?]
America has become a gold mine for the greedy, and daily misery for the unfortunate citizens who cannot find decent employment, afford decent housing, health care, education, and everything that makes up the American Dream.
It's real easy to say that poor people are lazy, and the wealthy deserve what they have been given, but I don't believe either is true, for the most part.

Why do Hollywood stars make so much? The big ones get their 20mil+ per film, whether it's a hit or bust.

Frivolous lawsuit reform and caps on jury awards is what's needed, regardless of who's pushing for it.

The American Dream is what is earned by the citizen, not handed to them by everyone else. You want a house, WORK towards it. Health care? YOU have to afford it. It's because we give to those who refuse to do for themselves that health care is so expensive.

The wealthy aren't 'given' squat... at least most of them. They are wealthy because they have a talent most others don't. Kinda like movie stars, sports figures, singers, etc. CEOs are a "supply and demand" job, just like every other job. Sometimes they end up not being worth their pay. But that, again, is an example of every other job in the country... the sports star who flubs after a big contract; the movie star who is distracted during shooting; the McDonalds cashier who constantly gets your order wrong; the UAW worker who clocks in and leaves for the rest of the day; the president who doesn't hold up to the hype.

As for Joe the plummer... he wasn't a plant. Obama went down HIS street, and Joe saw an opportunity to get some answers. Regardless if Joe didn't pay this tax, or didn't have that license, the fact remains that OBAMA is the one who said "Share the wealth". Joe didn't put those words in his mouth. He brought up valid points MANY Americans experience. Keep on denouncing everyone who challenges your messiah, and we'll keep stepping on the worms who crawl out from under their CNN, MSNBC, NYT rocks to trash legitimate ppl for speaking their minds.

About your reply on taxes... yes, the government has the power to levy taxes; but the Constitution limits what the government can spend that on. Apparently, they don't care.

It seems quite obvious that you resent the fact that ppl are rich when others are poor.

The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I do agree with what you say about the supply and demand, talent etc and the wages that movie stars etc make. I know it works that way. BUT, I have a problem with us, the people and our priorities or lack of them. Why is it that we put such a high value on "useless talent" and far less on what I call "important" talent. Example: Useless: a movie star, it does not matter which one, making a zillion or so to pretend to be someone or something. Example: Usefull: a paramedic who pulls you out of a flaming car and saves your life. Why is it that we see more value in throwing or chatching a ball? Bouncing a ball? Singing a song? Rather than being a great brain surgin, or, a firefighter, or, the garbage man, that hauls away our trash and garbage therefore helping to prevent epidemics and vermin infestations? Just wondering, I have far more respect for the ONE good garbage man than all of the stars put together. Just how I feel. layoutshooter
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
I do agree with what you say about the supply and demand, talent etc and the wages that movie stars etc make. I know it works that way. BUT, I have a problem with us, the people and our priorities or lack of them. Why is it that we put such a high value on "useless talent" and far less on what I call "important" talent. Example: Useless: a movie star, it does not matter which one, making a zillion or so to pretend to be someone or something. Example: Usefull: a paramedic who pulls you out of a flaming car and saves your life. Why is it that we see more value in throwing or chatching a ball? Bouncing a ball? Singing a song? Rather than being a great brain surgin, or, a firefighter, or, the garbage man, that hauls away our trash and garbage therefore helping to prevent epidemics and vermin infestations? Just wondering, I have far more respect for the ONE good garbage man than all of the stars put together. Just how I feel. layoutshooter

I agree. But we like to watch movies, watch sports, listen to music, etc. The firefighters, paramedics, cops, etc., ARE more important. But many more ppl can learn and do that job; and that's where supply and demand comes in. Can't say I agree with it, but that's what a free market is.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Oh, I know, I was just musing. I just find it odd that we would pay more money to a man pretending to be a doctor and then complain that the real doctor, who really does save your life, makes too much money. AND if that doctor is human, as we, or at least most of us are, happens to make a mistake, we sue the living daylights out of him. Makes sense to me!!!! Layoutshooter
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Another thought, if people were to prioritize thier lives, spent less on movies, booze, tv, sport, drugs etc. they might have more for health care, food, mortgage payments. I was amazed when watching a man complaining about his mortgage going up. He really said, on tv, that he was going to have to get rid of his cable tv to make his mortgage payments. He was very upset that times were soooo hard. No cable. How can anyone live? Layoutshooter
 
Top