The McCain Thread

[The Senator]

This forum's double posts spasms are seriously pissing me off.

 

[The Senator]

Found where it originated from, after doing some digging:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

Considering the Washington Post is one of the most reliable newspapers in the country, I trust their research.

 

[CaptainClown]

see below

I beat you.

 

[hammerhedd11]

That doesn't say that each person who makes above $2.8 million will be paying a 94% income tax-- meaning they give away 94% of their income to taxes. That was the claim you made, and you disproved yourself with that article.

As for what the article actually says... considering the top 50% make more COLLECTIVELY than those in the bottom 50%, it makes perfect sense for them to pay more in taxes. They have the extra money to throw away.

It's hard for me to feel sorry for the CEO worth $40 million when my own family, which makes a combined $75k, can't afford groceries because they have to worry about car and mortgage payments which have been affected severely by the financial crisis. Sorry the poor CEO can't buy his Maserati or Miami Penthouse, but I'm sure if he acts like most middle class families, he can learn to put a little extra away and maybe one day he'll be able to buy all those luxury goods he wishes he can have now.

The top 50 which means my family which makes about 250,000 a year. Yeah I have a bunch of money to throw around. Add to the tax all of the money I'll be giving to the people on welfare who don't deserve it thanks to Obama's spread the wealth plan. We already pay the bulk of taxes. Why should I have to pay more?

 

[The Senator]

I beat you.

I tried thanking you, but the forum's double post aneurysm didn't save it.

 

[The Senator]

The top 50 which means my family which makes about 250,000 a year. Yeah I have a bunch of money to throw around. Add to the tax all of the money I'll be giving to the people on welfare who don't deserve it thanks to Obama's spread the wealth plan. We already pay the bulk of taxes. Why should I have to pay more?

I don't feel sorry for you. You make over three times the amount my family makes. It's time you pay the burden hardworking Americans have been paying for decades without any relief.

 

[hammerhedd11]

I don't feel sorry for you. You make over three times the amount my family makes. It's time you pay the burden hardworking Americans have been paying for decades without any relief.

So I don't count as a hard working American? I'm apalled at this statement. Do you even know me? I had to work my way up the ladder. I had to hitchhike across the country to get to medical school. I had to pay my loans and college bills myself for 12 years of medical school. I went through poverty and had to raise three kids while working nights. I worked my way up. Don't you dare tell me what I have to do with my hard earned money. Don't you dare tell me who deserves my money more.

 

[The Senator]

So I don't count as a hard working American? I'm apalled at this statement. Do you even know me? I had to work my way up the ladder. I had to hitchhike across the country to get to medical school. I had to pay my loans and college bills myself for 12 years of medical school. I went through poverty and had to raise three kids while working nights. I worked my way up. Don't you dare tell me what I have to do with my hard earned money. Don't you dare tell me who deserves my money more.

Yeah, and my father served in the Army for six years and drove truck for UPS while he juggled his college education and raising two children on his own. My mother was on welfare while my father was in college. My father taught kids in the ghetto for five years, had his car destroyed by hoodlums once and was assaulted on another occasion. He went back to school to get his masters in visual media so he could move up in the administration. Meanwhile, my mother has worked as a janitor for twelve years, is one of the best known people in her school district, and has only seen a raise twice-- when New York's minimum wage went up, and when the federal minimum wage went up.

My father currently works as a tech supervisor for the Rochester City School District while also serving as a librarian for one of the schools, my mother is still a janitor. Combined they make $75k a year. I am in my senior year in college and have $80k worth of loans in my name because my family couldn't dip into a magical trust fund to support me.

You want to talk about people who work hard... well, sorry, but I consider our teachers, janitors, firefighters, technical operators, farmers, and police officers to be more hardworking as the trust fund babies who were born with silver spoons in their hands and only have to work four hours a week in order to accumulate a seven-digit income.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Once again, you assume that I have been spoon-fed my entire life. I've never gotten money from my parents. Once I graduated high school I was kicked out. I had no money. And by the way, I work 55 hours a work week.

 

[The Senator]

Once again, you assume that I have been spoon-fed my entire life. I've never gotten money from my parents. Once I graduated high school I was kicked out. I had no money. And by the way, I work 55 hours a work week.

Awesome. My father works 60 hours a week. And he still makes less than $50k a year.

Again, I find it difficult to feel sorry for someone who makes three times the amount as my family when I am currently in the process of helping them figure out where they should move now that they've realized that they cannot afford to pay for the home we've lived in for eight years. If the middle class was just bustling with economic opportunities, I would be against this tax plan. But guess what? I've actually been a part of the middle class and been a part of several of the ongoing economic struggles the middle class faces on the whole, and my sympathy for those who live well is really at a minimum right now.

 

[Corey]

Awesome. My father works 60 hours a week. And he still makes less than $50k a year.

Again, I find it difficult to feel sorry for someone who makes three times the amount as my family when I am currently in the process of helping them figure out where they should move now that they've realized that they cannot afford to pay for the home we've lived in for eight years. If the middle class was just bustling with economic opportunities, I would be against this tax plan. But guess what? I've actually been a part of the middle class and been a part of several of the ongoing economic struggles the middle class faces on the whole, and my sympathy for those who live well is really at a minimum right now.

To be fair--with respect--hammerhedd has a valid point on this particular issue. You have yet to actually discredit what he said, or show him that he is in the wrong, politically.

 

[The Senator]

To be fair--with respect--hammerhedd has a valid point on this particular issue. You have yet to actually discredit what he said, or show him that he is in the wrong, politically.

My point is simple: There are hardworking people at the top, just as there are hardworking people at the bottom. When forced to make a choice on taxation, I feel that those who make more should be willing to sacrifice more. The middle class has sacrificed more than enough over the past ten years, it's time that those who make more than $250,000 a year start to pay their share of the tax burden.

 

[Corey]

My point is simple: There are hardworking people at the top, just as there are hardworking people at the bottom. When forced to make a choice on taxation, I feel that those who make more should be willing to sacrifice more. The middle class has sacrificed more than enough over the past ten years, it's time that those who make more than $250,000 a year start to pay their share of the tax burden.

I share the same sentiments, to a point. However, this simply doesn't negate the fact that both tactics--the general "screwing" of the middle class taxation-wise over the past how-many-years, and this new taxation tactic where wealth of the rich is distributed to lower class--have the same modum of faultiness to some extent.

So saying Obama's plan is at least better than ____, is kind of irrelavent, since the point in the first place is that this plan, in and of itself, has some problems.

In short, and for the bolded, titt for tatt isn't the most intelligent strategy if the candidates are claiming a "new step forward".

 

[The Senator]

I share the same sentiments, to a point. However, this simply doesn't negate the fact that both tactics--the general "screwing" of the middle class taxation-wise over the past how-many-years, and this new taxation tactic where wealth of the rich is distributed to lower class--have the same modum of faultiness to some extent.

So saying Obama's plan is at least better than ____, is kind of irrelavent, since the point in the first place is that this plan, in and of itself, has some problems.

In short, and for the bolded, titt for tatt isn't the most intelligent strategy if the candidates are claiming a "new step forward".

Economists from around the world have endorsed Obama's economic plan. I tend to trust expert opinion on this matter, especially the opinion of those who have won the Nobel Prize in that field.

 

[Corey]

Economists from around the world have endorsed Obama's economic plan. I tend to trust expert opinion on this matter, especially the opinion of those who have won the Nobel Prize in that field.

Understandable. But again, in the interest of being fair, that still doesn't address whether or not hammerhead's stance was wrong. Economists the world over endorsing Obama's tax plan is, as I've pointed out before, comparitive. It only means for certain that those economists like Obama's plan better than McCain's. It doesn't address the plan in and of itself, and therefore neither did you.

 

[The Senator]

Understandable. But again, in the interest of being fair, that still doesn't address whether or not hammerhead's stance was wrong. Economists the world over endorsing Obama's tax plan is, as I've pointed out before, comparitive. It only means for certain that those economists like Obama's plan better than McCain's. It doesn't address the plan in and of itself, and therefore neither did you.

I explained my position on taxation. Those who earn more should pay more. It should be pretty elementary, to be honest. Those who earn less shouldn't be paying the bulk of the tax burden when the top income earners in this country make more money collectively than everyone in the middle class combined.

 

[Arc-Light]

I share the same sentiments, to a point. However, this simply doesn't negate the fact that both tactics--the general "screwing" of the middle class taxation-wise over the past how-many-years, and this new taxation tactic where wealth of the rich is distributed to lower class--have the same modum of faultiness to some extent.

So saying Obama's plan is at least better than ____, is kind of irrelavent, since the point in the first place is that this plan, in and of itself, has some problems.

In short, and for the bolded, titt for tatt isn't the most intelligent strategy if the candidates are claiming a "new step forward".

It is simple the rich can handle it, while everyone else cant...since the cost of living has increased ( due to the rich being greedy SOBs) no one will suffer and the money goes back to American families/system....

 

[Corey]

I explained my position on taxation. Those who earn more should pay more. It should be pretty elementary, to be honest. Those who earn less shouldn't be paying the bulk of the tax burden when the top income earners in this country make more money collectively than everyone in the middle class combined.

Which I agree with. The point is, as long as fairly earned money from hard working wealthy doesn't get distributed against their will to those who happen to be of a lower economic class who don't deserve it. Comparitively, is it better for such a thing to happen to the wealthy who have more cushion, instead of the middle class, like it has for the longest time through erroneous policies like "trickle-down economics"? Absolutely. But, technically, neither is right. I know you wouldn't disagree.

 

[The Senator]

Which I agree with. The point is, as long as fairly earned money from hard working wealthy doesn't get distributed against their will to those who happen to be of a lower economic class who don't deserve it. Comparitively, is it better for such a thing to happen to the wealthy who have more cushion, instead of the middle class, like it has for the longest time through erroneous policies like "trickle-down economics"? Absolutely. But, technically, neither is right. I know you wouldn't disagree.

My parents didn't get to pick and choose where their money went, and I'm certain a lot of it went to support ridiculous programs such as "Faith-based initiatives" and our oh-so-wonderful war on terror. The rich will just have to deal with their money being redistributed to certain people or programs they disagree with.

 

[Corey]

My parents didn't get to pick and choose where their money went, and I'm certain a lot of it went to support ridiculous programs such as "Faith-based initiatives" and our oh-so-wonderful war on terror. The rich will just have to deal with their money being redistributed to certain people or programs they disagree with.

Fair enough, Jman. Whether this turns out to be a correctly balanced analogy or not remains to be seen. I'm hoping it does.

 

[Kurosawa]

I share the same sentiments, to a point. However, this simply doesn't negate the fact that both tactics--the general "screwing" of the middle class taxation-wise over the past how-many-years, and this new taxation tactic where wealth of the rich is distributed to lower class--have the same modum of faultiness to some extent.

So saying Obama's plan is at least better than ____, is kind of irrelavent, since the point in the first place is that this plan, in and of itself, has some problems.

In short, and for the bolded, titt for tatt isn't the most intelligent strategy if the candidates are claiming a "new step forward".

Nothing particularly new about Obama's tax plan, it's just basically a return to Clinton's tax code.

The rich were hardly suffering back then. This "me me me" attitude disgusts me.

 

[raybia]

The wealthy meaning, those with a little above average income, have to pay 94.5 % of their income. The others pay only 5.5 % of their income for tax. So stop whining.

Not whining at all because I believe Obama will do what he says and also I believe he will become the next President of the United States so I'm very optimstic that the wealthy will be finally get to walk in the shoes of the middle class for a while...at least in terms of taxes.

I'm just confused about where you got your numbers as jman was.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Cheney endorsed McCain this morning. Not surprisingly, Biden and Obama were all over it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/01/dick-cheney-endorses-mcca_n_139990.html

 

[raybia]

Cheney endorsed McCain this morning. Not surprisingly, Biden and Obama were all over it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/01/dick-cheney-endorses-mcca_n_139990.html

Yeah because we all know that a Cheney endorsement will win over indecisive voters as well as some Democratic voters.

 

[Schlosser85]

No one is going to pay 94% of their income in taxes. The upper class will go back to the same taxes they were paying under Clinton, and EVERYONE, or nearly everyone, was doing exceedingly well back then, both upper and middle class.