I thought Willard Romney was the stoopidest candidate the GOPiggies could field.

I was wrong.

Actually Mccadaver tied himself to Republican philosophy.

But only 90% of the time.

Then he whined about being shown videos of himself saying how much he supported Bush.

That's so mavericky.

Republican Philosophy is cut taxes and spend even more. How do get ahead that way John McSame as Bush.

The only President since 1980 to spend less than he took in and have the smallest government was Clinton. All the rest of the pubs who said they were going to reduce taxes and reign in spending turned out to have the largest governments and be the biggest spenders. Regan 8 years, Both Bushes 12 years. So for the last 20 of 28 years we have been screwed by the Republicans and now find Bush turning over this country to Obama with a 11 trillion debt.

Too bad that obama voted repeatedly with the same gop assholes on the war,nazi act, bank bailouts, etc. Otherwise he might actually be able to make a contention that he is any different...

How bout ears run on what he will do. Bush isn't running for anything.

How bout ears run on what he will do. Bush isn't running for anything.

It's all out there Sniper. Google it or go to his web site. Or go to Mccadaver and see that Obama is a black christian muslim anarchist communist who's going to kill all the whiteys but only after robbing them and carving the collected writings of malcom X on their cheeks.

Backwards.

In farsi.

And see if you can find ANYTHING there about Palin's ethics violation and pipeline swindle.

"How bout ears run on what he will do. Bush isn't running for anything." -

Now that IS funny. From watching Obama speaking I know EXACTLY what he wants to do. From watching McCain, he hates Obama, thats all I know...

His main platform as I see it.

1)Raise government spending for all social programs
2)Send checks to all that don't pay taxes
3)Cut the military in half
4)Do away with the first and second amendment
5)Raise taxes on most all business so they pass it along to everyone
6)Invade Pakastan
7)Increase troop strength in Afaganstan

Have I covered the major points? I'm sure I have left something out.

I don't care what the fuck obama says. He's done nothing but sign the same gop shit since he's been in office. No reason to believe that giving him more power will change jack all diddly squat shit...

I'm sure I have left something out.

#10 | Posted by Sniper

Yeah, reality.

SNIPER how far into his first term will it take for you to admit you are wrong when he doesn't do exactly what you want to pretend he will now.
I suspect four years from now you will still be saying the same crap and still have nothing to base it on.

Have I covered the major points? I'm sure I have left something out.

Sniper-you missed the forcing everyone to become communist abortionist muslim Bible burners.

Yeah and Obama is of the same radical left philopsophy as Ayers and Wright and ...

He is a false Moderate---

Murphy is's sort of funny that you use the National Review to try and pretend Obama isn't a moderate when the son of the founder just resigned after endorsing him....because he's a moderate.

Too funny!

SNIPER how far into his first term will it take for you to admit you are wrong when he doesn't do exactly what you want to pretend he will now.

#13 | Posted by danni

How far into his first term will it take for you to admit you screwed up if I am right?

First thing is he will let the Bush tax cut expire. See what happens to your taxes then.

Good point, Danni.

Murphy is just full of false false false, as are the others, running out of sanity and veering right over the edge, as shown by several of today's threads. You would think by now they would have figured that their candidates are digging themselves further into the Bush-pit of the last 8 years.

(Now we even know Palin spoke to Dick Cheney about her phony pipeline contracts)

First thing is he will let the Bush tax cut expire.

Oh, you mean the tax cut that McCain thought was "irresponsible" in the days when he tried to tell the truth.

First thing is he will let the Bush tax cut expire.

Can someone illustrate how that will affect everybody?

This is what I found.....

Tax rates will rise substantially in each tax bracket, some by 450 basis points;
Low-income taxpayers will see the 10-percent tax bracket disappear, and they will have to pay taxes at the 15-percent rate;
Married taxpayers will see the marriage penalty return;
Taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits;
Taxes on dividends will increase beginning on January 1, 2009;
Taxes on capital gains will increase, also beginning on January 1, 2009; and
Federal death taxes will come back to life in 2011, after fading down to nothing in 2010.

is the left okay with those tax increases??

How many of Bush's budgets did Obama vote for? Just wondering.

Tax rates will rise substantially in each tax bracket, some by 450 basis points

That's taking the most extreme examples in the tax code, and probably nothing which affects the typical taxpayer. Most tax rates will only rise incrementally.

Low-income taxpayers will see the 10-percent tax bracket disappear, and they will have to pay taxes at the 15-percent rate

That will probably remain. If not, it works out to about 400 bucks.

Married taxpayers will see the marriage penalty return

That will also most probably remain.

Taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits

Isn't paying for someone else's children socialism?

Taxes on dividends will increase beginning on January 1, 2009

Up to as high as wages, or unemployment, or just from 15%, to 20% or 25%?

Taxes on capital gains will increase, also beginning on January 1, 2009

Up to as high as wages, or unemployment, or just from 15%, to 20% or 25%?

Federal death taxes will come back to life in 2011, after fading down to nothing in 2010.

This is a tax which only affects multi-millionaires and billionaires. Eliminating something like this while running the largest deficits in history is a fool's errand. BTW, the estate tax will not fade down to nothing in 2010. It'll be changed before that.

That will probably remain. If not, it works out to about 400 bucks.

I think it would be more. $400 is 5% of $8,000. The lower income bracket ecompasses more than $8,000 of income.

But using your figure, a lower income tax braket person will not get their $600 tax rebate and pay at least $400 more. Furthermore, child tax credits are going to be removed by 50%???

This could be a HUGE difference for a lower income household when you add all of this up.

Agree?

" The lower income bracket ecompasses more than $8,000 of income."

But that's only the taxable income which is taxed at the lower, 10% rate.

Bush's 'Philosophy': Do unto others, then split.

I like how Danforth pretends that $400 is chump change for someone in the lower brackets.

"But using your figure, a lower income tax braket person will not get their $600 tax rebate and pay at least $400 more. Furthermore, child tax credits are going to be removed by 50%???"

I believe the $600 was the one-time stimulus.

Otherwise...yes, $400 more, and child care credits will be reduced. That's the law the Republicans proposed, the Republicans wrote, the Republicans passed without a single Democratic vote, and the Republicans signed into law.

"I like how Danforth pretends that $400 is chump change for someone in the lower brackets."

I don't. I realize EVERYONE will have to participate.

I'm sure the higher taxes will hurt the millionaire as well.

I believe the $600 was the one-time stimulus.

how many times have we done it?

"how many times have we done it?"

To my recollection, twice during Bush's administration.

I think these are significant to lower income people.

do you think it is best to let these tax cuts expire?

The ones that I have previously referenced.

Wasn't there THREE times the rebates came out. Once right after 2001 once before or after 2004 and then this last one this Year. Am I forgetting something??

Larry

If I remember correctly most generally all who filed taxes got the first one the second one only Families with children under the age of 17 and I believe the elderly and some low income folks got the Second and the third a lot more got them like in 2001. I don't know why but that is what I remember at least.

Larry

That's the law the Republicans proposed, the Republicans wrote, the Republicans passed without a single Democratic vote, and the Republicans signed into law.

You don't have to convice me that the republicans own this deal but every president inherits this stuff Danforth.

The dems will (presumably) be in a position to not hurt lower income people with this expiration.

I haven't heard from Obama that lower income folks need to pay more but rather that the wealth need to pay more, yet he knows what effect this will have.

You can spin this anyway you want but either Obama cares about lower income folks or he doesn't. He can't spin out of that.

"do you think it is best to let these tax cuts expire?"

Some, certainly...others have proven fairer (eliminating the marriage penalty). The tax cuts for the wealthiest were sold to create jobs...which they did, just not here. And the idea of eliminating the estate tax while fighting two wars and running massive on-budget AND off-budget deficits should be off the table. A generation or two ago, it was abhorrant to tax unearned income, like dividends, less than sweat-of-the-brow labor. Now, it's an everyday occurrence. In some instances, we tax unemployment at more than double the rate of dividends and capital gains.

In general, the Bush tax codes are the most slanted toward the wealthy I've ever seen. By far.

But I completely agree with your assessment the other side of the problem, the bigger side, is spending.

"but either Obama cares about lower income folks or he doesn't. "

Do you always equate "caring" with "lowering taxes"? I don't. And Obama should be caring about ALL Americans, all of us who are going to have to sacrifice our fair share. If the tide rises, all boats---rich, poor, and in between---lift.

Do you always equate "caring" with "lowering taxes"?

On the poor? I think it is very significant to them. I think that a $1,000 in tax burden on a low income household is significant with regard to "caring".

But I won't claim to be "independent".

:-(

Obama is truly a socialist
newsmax.com

~Takitez

No, no he aint.

Newsmax, on the other hand, is truly a wingnut hatchery.

Just fer shits and giggles, Tacky, how do you define "socialism"?

Be Well.

"I think that a $1,000 in tax burden on a low income household is significant with regard to "caring"."

That's why I believe some of that will be mitigated. Still, it's going to hurt for ALL of us...that's the forced result of trillion in bailouts and the other trillion in backdoor bailouts: forced higher taxes.

You knew that when we all signed up, didn't you?

"It posted both the ads of Obama and McCain."

Are you suggesting the NYT doesn't print McCain ads?!?

Who knew Bush actually HAD a philosophy?

Bush HAD a philosophy. Then he won the presidency.

Bush HAD a philosophy? What was that? Drinking whiskey and snorting cocaine and fucking off in History class?