LOL..you can do business with EVERY webmaster on this board but it doesnt change the fact that KAMOCATS proggie is worth more than yours. Its funny how the loudest mouths on this board have the least traffic.

you have a track record of talking bullshit thats pretty much it

You're right about one thing 12clicks, it doesn't matter.

This election is alot like 1980, the vast majority of the country is sick of the way things have been going and the policies that have led us there, and they desperately want a change.
All Obama had to do to "win" was prove he has the temperament and the intelligence to be President.

He's done that. You may not like his policies or his background or whatever, but you can't deny that he has the temperament and intelligence for the job.

[QUOTE=Adult Lounge - Brad;14869219]I almost had to abort this thread after your absolutely unnecessary and ridiculous tirade about "hipsters". How does that have any barring on the election?

QUOTE]

You almost had to abort this thread because of something I said lol, I mean chill the fuck out and this is not a congressional hearing so should you have aborted I dont think it would of destabilize the civilized world.

As far as what hipsters have to do with the obama hype well figure it out.

I don't want to get in the mud with you on this, but if we're talking facts, then let's talk facts.

Those 13% don't pay federal income taxes, they do pay payroll taxes (FICA). Obama is proposing a tax credit for those people to offset some of their payroll tax.
The 95% number is a little pie in the sky, the actual statement should be "95% of families", and even then you have to look at the numbers in the best possible light...but to call it a lie is a bit much.

28% was the capital gains rate Bill Clinton inherited from George HW Bush, which he inherited from your hero Ronald Reagan.
Clinton cut that rate twice, once to 23%, and again to 20%.

The 20% rate that was in place when Clinton left office is what Obama is proposing to go back to. My understanding is also that the higher rate will only apply to capital gains for those making over 250K per year.

All of Obama's tax proposals will have you paying less taxes than you did under Ronald Reagan, so while tomorrow's taxes might be higher than today's taxes, these are hardly onerous proposals that would hurt the economy.

best part of this thread =

serge posting on gfy again

=]

I can afford it, can you talk bullshit for 8 years straight and doing nothing else?

I don't think so, working bee.

FICA is social security. I'm glad you're ok with giving people a completely free ride and then pay for their retirement and give free healthcare to the children they can't afford to have but I'm not.
please don't confuse income tax with FICA, FICA is where the poor pay a small token to receive many times that in return during "retirement"

silly kid. the democratic controlled congress blocked Reagan from lowering taxes:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
"""Prospects are considered slim that President Reagan's call for lower capital gains taxes will go anywhere in the Democratic-controlled Congress in the forseeable future.
President Reagan, who is expected to propose such a reduction in his State of the Union Message Monday night, has pressed the idea before - in his first and second terms. But his only success with Congress came in his first year in office.
In the past two years, Congress has soundly rejected various proposals to cut capital gains taxes in considering major tax legislation.""

no, again you're wrong. The republican controlled congress lowered the rate. Not Clinton

I alreaded quoted obama on this and he did not say 20%.
I won't call you a liar if you can come up with a quote of his saying 20%

incorrect as well as irrelevant.

and why not?

UBS caved in and pays $19,000,000,000 to me and other folks, our cash is unfrozen, my job is done, now I can go pailing and gfying once again
;)

How you been, man!?

I didn't read anything except the OP's statement....However, it doesn't matter because Obama is going to win the ELECTION....I couldn't give two fucks about arguing who won a debate...

Ronie, taxes are NOTHING. Who cares about low tax rates when one is unemployed?
Who cares about fat banking acount when the revolution redistributes the wealth?
I'd rather have my wealth redistributed by law than by the mob like it happened in..
French Revolution
Russian Revolution and as Brits will confirm
American revolution.

The rich folks are not scared by taxes, it's about time you start behaving like one.

Pennsylvania:

Philly on one side, Pitt on the other, and Alabama in between :P

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh
:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh
:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh
:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

i think the opposite is true.

anyone that wants to get elected is forced to say anything to appeal to a broad enough base to be electable.

we hold politicians to impossible standards, pick apart ever syllable of every word and twist it against them, demand the impossible and have basically created a position that attracts nothing but narcissistic, sociopathic weirdos.

obama is just as full of shit as anyone else is. he's changed his position on almost anything he's ever talked about once he realized his position wasn't the most popular or wasn't resonating with those voters who need to be swayed to his side

mccain is just a creepy looking weirdo... that can't stop talking about how he can't get along with either party (i.e. "maverick") and who can't stop talking about vietnam. sorry... i don't give a fuck if some guy 600 years ago flew a plane a war or got shot down and captured while doing it. doesn't make him a great president or competent leader.

glad I've clicked this thread!

A tax is a tax....what the tax pays for is irrelevant. You said 13% of US workers pay zero tax. That is a false statement.

13% of US workers pay no federal income tax, but they still pay taxes. You may want to clarify that statement to say "income tax", but once you do, then you can't call Obama a liar because he didn't say he was going to give 95% of families "an income tax cut" he said he was going to give them a "tax cut"


Calling me a kid doesn't make you look like a grown up, it makes you look like an asshole.

Capital gains tax rates.
1978 - 39%
1979-80 - 28%
1981 - 23.7%
1982-86 - 20%
1987 - 28%
1988-1990 - 28%-33%

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

Clinton signed it into law did he not? By that logic it was the democrats in congress who cut taxes in the 1980's.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...clarifies.html

The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% -- the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. A 20% rate is almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986


Income tax rates, from the same source as above.

1981 - 70%/50%
1982-86 - 50%
1987 - 38.5%

So with the exception of Reagan's last two years, Obama's income tax proposals will have high income earners paying a lower rate than they did under the bulk of Reagan's term.

Also, the lower brackets will be much lower under the Obama plan than they were under the Reagan plan. (And don't forget, you pay taxes in those lower brackets too, you only pay the higher rate on income over and above the 200K threshold, on your first 20K, 50K, 199K, etc, you pay the same tax rates as everyone else)

I realize you object to taxes no matter what, but we have a national debt of $10+ trillion....and 8 trillion of that was under the watch of Ronald Reagan and George W Bush, both of whom brought in sweeping tax cuts and claimed they would pay for themselves.
They obviously didn't and if we don't get our fiscal house in order the dollar will be worth about as much as a peso.

They did not capitalize on the town hall format and I think that hurt them. They had a chance to really connect with the people, but didn't do it.

this is the key point in all of this.

you think raising taxes gets "our fiscal house in order" it doesn't. cutting spending is the only answer. The reagan and bush tax cuts *did* pay for themselves (look it up)
what it didn't pay for was the obscene spending spree congress has been on for decades.

so yeah, lets elect the guy who wants to spend more money because, well if we just raise taxes on the rich, everything will be ok.

I'm often embarrassed that I've accomplished so little in a country where most of the people are dumb enough to believe Obama's fairy tale.

If you don't raise some taxes on some people, how do you plan on paying off the debt? Already 10 trillion in debt with a couple trillion more on the books for bailouts.

stop spending.
we really do NOT need all of the things the government tells us we need.
on top of that, cut taxes further. cutting taxes raises tax revenue, not the other way around.

I have looked it up, and they don't pay for themselves.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...in_higher.html

http://www.ocpp.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=cp0603

http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/0...or-themselves/


Sure tax revenues eventually increase, but that's because our population and tax base grow every year. Revenues would have been substantially higher had those tax cuts not been enacted.

Tax revenues went up substantially more under Clinton than they did under Reagan, or under Bush.

I agree with the spending....so let's start by not spending $10 billion a month in Iraq anymore.

Most of the "spending' Obama is proposing are on things that will save us money in the long term.

Investing in renewable energy sources so that we're not dependent on foreign oil. Not having to pay $4 a gallon for gas would be a boon to the economy.

Fixing the health care system and getting everyone coverage, because it will be cheaper for all of us when the uninsured stop going to emergency rooms for free treatment.

When it comes to politics you come off as an ideologue, but as a successful businessman I'm sure you're also a pragmatist. As a pragmatist I'm sure you would have to agree that some things you disagree with from an idealogical standpoint are still the right and practical thing to do.

Why don't you just say Obama is a Socialist and you don't like that. That would be understandable.

Obama is talking about cutting Gov services we don't need, reducing others, cleaning house in that way to free up money. "Reducing Gov" Which is a major amount of money.

As well as stopping 10b a month going out into one war. Then reducing tax on some people, closing tax holes that are abused by corps, then reducing the tax again in those areas. He has explained where, what, and even how - I'm just not going to type that much here.

Then to bring in more money, jobs, ect to cover the cleanup, he wants to advance forward into Energy Technology. (the new i.t.) Which could and should be a major building block for our Economy over next decade.

I don't really understand how you could be confused about what Obama has said, how he would get the money and how he plans on doing it. He has been saying the same thing for months. And just the "basic" areas he is talking about frees up far more than enough money to cover his social ideas.


The bush "Tax cuts" paid for itself because it taxed the middle class more. Look it up.

I agree. But wouldn't you support a Democratic President then? The last 3 Republican Presidents have signed off on massive spending and increased our national debt exponentially. The last Democratic President had a massive surplus.

Seems the best combo would be a Democratic President and Republican Congress.

Actually, McCain hired some of the same guys that Bush had fucking him in 2000 to be part of his campaign...gives you an idea about where the attacks that are coming out now come from.

I think Obama's quote during last night's election says it all. This is after McCain tried to explain his rendition of Obama's tax plan:

I disagree with the opinions of the links you posted.

irrelevant. the economic boom of the internet, housing, etc. had nothing to do with clinton (or the republican congress) it was a simple thing of right place right time.

I'd prefer to recoup our losses by taking iraqi oil but thats just me. it was a huge blunder to not pay for the war with iraqi oil

mccain and obama have the same plan here.

This is entirely untrue and another boondogle the american people are about to swallow.
If a store announces that bread is now free? who won't take a free loaf of bread?
no different than medical care. Make it free and the guy who goes to the doctor once a year, now goes 5 times a year because, well, its free.
All of obama's projections of costs are idiotic because he didn't factor in what happens with human nature over the concept of "free"
this is the ugly side of false promises. we'll have a second Social Security we can't possibly pay for. then what? shall we tax the rich again?

I always do the right and practical thing.
pretending that health care is some sort of god given right and should be free for everyone is not practical or right.
raising taxes on the rich to placate your democratic base is not practical or right.
the entire country should should feel the pain of political spending then perhaps the poor would stop voting for more and more spending.

I'm not confused. you're simply gulled by his fairy tale.
he is cutting nothing of significance and you're simply fooled by his talk of evil corporations and quick exit from iraq.

and you're dead wrong about Bush's tax cuts. its a shame.
only among democratic kool aide drinkers is an across the board tax cut seen as a "tax cut for the rich" or that they were paid for by taxing the middle class more.
it goes beyond sad, its pathetic.

I'd be willing to give it a shot but thats not what we'd have. we'd have a democratic president and a democratic congress. expecting them to show any type of fiscal responsibility other than raising more taxes is silly in my opinion.

What do you consider a God given right as a citizen of this country?

Those were hardly all opinion pieces....especially the first one. It was an independent fact checking organization that has been just as hard on both sides and doesn't publish opinion pieces.

If you want to continue to believe that lowering taxes increases revenue, then I suppose you have that right, but if you continue to believe in that "fairy tale" then you really have no business telling the rest of us we're delusional.

At this point arguing further is futile, because even in the face of overwhelming evidence you're not willing to admit the major flaw in your ideology as it pertains to taxes.

What fairy tale? I never said I was voting for Obama or bought into anything either have said, I simply repeated it. You appear confused on what Obama is doing, I cleared it up.

Under the Bush tax cut, millions of Americans, mostly upper-middle class, paid extra tax every year since his tax cut. His net balance of the cut vs the increase in other areas, did not actually decrease taxes. That is a fact and you can look it up.

I never heard Obama say any thing about evil corps. Just that CEO's getting multi-million dollar bonuses after bankruptcy is bs, which it is - I wouldn't get a bonus if my company went bankrupt. And the true fact that our Companies do pay less tax than almost any nation because of the loop holes that also get us into trouble. Not evil - just logical.

I don't see what the issue is with taxing the upper classes more. I'm not rich but I'm not in the middle class either. I have no issues paying more tax. I support, supporting our lower classes and people that can't afford to pay for basic things of life, like medical care.


Even my family, I make plenty of money, decent size company. And I can not afford to have my wife in my Insurance policy. She can not, ever, get a policy on her own, even Bill Gates couldn't afford it. She can ONLY work for major Corporations or nobody can bring her on. The cost of her medical care is more than my house.

So yeah, tax me more, tax you more, tax all us higher income people more. They would have to tax me 80% for it not to be worth it on my end. So I fully support it, fully support social health care. And I support higher income people/companies paying for it.

Onlything I know is McCain isn't correcting a damn thing and at least Obama has a half ass game plan/idea that 'if' he pulled it off would actually help the Country. Otherwise, who cares, we are fucked all around either way.

Hate to break it to you but as a partisan your opinion on the debate means squat. Same as an Obama partisans wouldn't mean squat. With partisans like you practically nothing McCain says or does would make you not vote for them. Same for Obama partisans. What matters is what undecideds, GOP leaners and Dem leaners thought about who won the debate. THEY are the ones who will decide the election.

when people are shown facts they dont like seeing they either A) say those are just opinions or B) (when "a" fails) start a response with "well in my opinion..."

agreed.

Anyone who votes for a Republican OR a Democrat needs to have their fucking head examined...

You all STILL can't see what they are doing?