How Low Can It Go? For the 2nd Time This Week

[Jill]

Hang on to your wallets... those earning $250,000 and above were supposedly "the wealthy" of our Nation initially according to Obama. Sounds like it might actually take just $120,000 of income to be the "wealthy" citizens (and he's not even been elected yet). These "wealthy" folks may be taxed like never before. I bet a lot of us fit into this newly expanded definition of wealthy, and many more may soon if they keep scaling it back.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/lo...e-class-making/

 

[Pepipony]

And your point is?? Unless the Presidential Candidate himself states it as lower than he stated previous, who cares?? If you are going to make a point of someone stating different than the candidate themselves, why not start with Sarah?

 

[Jill]

Because if he's elected, these democrats will be who he works with to make "his" changes. Democrats are notorious for raising taxes and expanding social programs and with one in the White House and too many in Congress, just think where it will go. That would be my point... along with hold on tight to your wallets.

 

[Miniv]

I may be wrong, but hasn't Senator Obama stated several different incomes? He's mentioned $250,000 and $150,000. And during his Half Hour Show he said $200,000.

Not that we personally have incomes close to that, but it makes a person nervous........

 

[Bassett]

Great article Jill. Thanks for posting. I have heard several numbers each one lower than the last. We can only hope and pray people wake up befor Tuesday.

 

[littlesteppers]

Well..some smart people figured out that he could have ALL his programs IF the income level comes down to 100 000..but this is just a line in the sand..if you like "more spending money" it will come down for sure..after all he voted for tax increases for anybody making more than 42 000

 

[Jill]

Mary Lou --

Obama's own recent words DO NOT match what you've found on his website (see the PS)

The writing is and has been all over the wall, but I don't think enough people will read it until it's too late

Jill

PS apparently his website's report of his plans hasn't been updated to reflect what he said in his glossy infomercial:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445092,00.html

 

[Pepipony]

Hear what he says, not hear what you want. He has stated that if you make over $250k you will see an increase in taxes. If you make less than $250k you will see no increase. So if you make $100k , you will see no increase, ditto with $200k. There is nothing nefarious about him stating the lower amounts, he is making points. He isnt stating that if you make over $100k will you will an increase.

If you are going to worry about what every Democrat says that states different than what THE presidential candidate states, then look at Sarah. How many things does she differ on than John? Or doesnt what she says matter? Do as I say, not as I do?

 

[Jill]

Pep, my point isn't to split hairs over one says this, one says that but to point out the TREND is that the "wealthy" people who were supposed to bear the brunt of the tax increases has gone from $250k, to ???. If Obama's elected, these democrats (who are stating lower numbers than Obama's initial pie in the sky promise) will be who he works with to make changes.

Again, democrats are notorious for raising taxes and expanding social programs. With Obama in the White House and too many Democrats in Congress, just think where the line may eventually be drawn between the so called wealthy to be more heavily taxed those not considered wealthy. As the "trend" in a short period of time has gone from saying it will be $250,000 to now $120,000.

 

[Jill]

You know.. Only a few FAR-LEFT (Fox) and other medias are making a big deal out of this complete nonsense.. People... PLEASE READ FACTS!! Stop believing all that propaganda!!

So when he said $200,000 in his infomercial, was that code for $250,000?

And how can you hold out a candidate's OWN website as the source of all facts and discount a respected national News channel?

PS FOX's commentary programs (as opposed to actual news coverage) would actually be considered much more right than left

 

[Basketmiss]

It seems to me that Obamas support (voters) think they are gonna have soooooooooooo much more money with Obama if they are middle or lower class..

I know someone who was trying to talk a friend into supporting Obama by telling her"well I dont have much money so he is gonna help me so much"! So she cant WHAT?? Eat out more? Shop more? blow money right and left? This person makes enough to live on , she just isnt using her brains, she expects some handouts!

My friend said I think you can have ANYTHING you want and are willing to work for!! I AGREE!! Stop the handouts for people just sitting around collecting Welfare and WIC, get a job like the rest of us!! Some people play the system to get ALL the handouts they can...

Some of us work for EVERYTHING we have ever had- I mean no handouts-no free food, no money given to us by relatives,no land given to us by relatives, It is ALL on us!! We get EVERYTHING WE can PAY for! My relatives could be as rich as Donald Trump and would give you money. They would sooner cut off an arm than give you money-thats ok, I have pride and we can take care of ourselves...

Do people not have any pride in todays world?? I could never be an able bodied human being and sit around and collect off someone else!! It infuriates me to no end!!

Why is it OK for some people to pay so much more in taxes because they were smart enough to make MORE money? So others can sit around and sponge off the government programs...

 

[Jill]

Missy,

I think you're right. I feel like a lot of people supporting Obama (speaking broadly, not specifically about LB members) are basically feeling like he's their own personal Robin Hood

Jill

 

[Jill]

Couldn't disagree with you more on pretty much every point you just expressed, Mary Lou

I do give you much credit and admiration for allowing far different opinions than your own to be voiced on LB. I appreciate you for it

And, I still may be naming one of my hoped for 2009 fillies Whinny For Me's Caribou Barbie, a/k/a "Mary Lou" (or Sarah, but Mary Lou would just be so funny!)

 

[Marnie]

I don't think Obama backers are sitting here waiting for their check but I do realize that I'm really poor if alot of the forum people make $120,00 a yr, I may be a welfare case, I'm lucky to make $25,000 a yr as most people in this area make. Alot of factorys here make $9-$10 an hour. I know people who go to the bread store to buy sacked up old bread for animals but then dig through it and thats' what the family eats for the week ( they have jobs and 4 kids) and they are not sitting waiting for their check either, they're full of hope that maybe our country can make some kind of a change for the better.

Maybe the reason we want Obama is because we really do hope for change. If they don't change the foreign policy on jobs, WI will lose 574,000 higher paying jobs in the next ten yrs. McCain voted against equal rights for women. He is still planning on giving big oil big breaks. I don't want people to have to pay tax on the medical insurance they recieve from their job, I know some people who are on such a tight budget, they'd probably have to drop their insurance as they could no longer afford it. McCain is proposing this. I don't think Social Security should be privatized, maybe it's not that we're sitting here waiting for our free checks, maybe it's that we actually do like Obamba's ideas better.

And in 07 McCain did say that if he gets this far, he'd never run a dirty campaign, if people don't see that this is exactly what he's doing, listen. As a last desparate attempt, he's trying to scare the people and it is working with some, especially the old people. So no, people I know who are voting and absolutely praying that Obama gets elected are not waiting for their checks, they are hard working people, hoping some one can some day turn this country back into a great country again and maybe other countrys won't be laughing and hating us.

Now if I posted when I shouldn't have, I'm sorry, whoever called me a bird or chicken or something like that, I don't recall, I didn't even know what you meant, speak English.

The point of my post is to let people know that Obama backers are to busy trying to make a living to be sitting here waiting for a check.

 

[SunQuest]

I'm sorry, but I don't trust anything that comes out of Obama's mouth. When he was running for the nomination he flat out said he was going to raise taxes to pay for the war. Well, that has now changed to taxing the "wealthy", and not being able to draw a firm line where wealthy is. How can I vote for someone who doesn't know what the heck is happening and can't take a firm stand on taxes? Lets see, raise taxes, not raise taxes, lower taxes for middle income, redefine middle income.... I'm sorry. At this stage of the campaign, he should NOT be changing his plans.

I want a president that I know I can trust.... Even if I absolutely HATE what they want to do. At least I will know they are not lying to me.

 

[AppyLover2]

Something I don't think I've ever seen mentioned on LB is that the Busch tax cut will expire in 2 years unless it's signed back into law. Obama has said that he will let the expiration happen. So even if you believe that he won't raise taxes he has already told us (in a round-about way) that our taxes will go up in 2 years. That is assuming he doesn't raise them himself to help get us out of our economic problems before then.

Marnie I think "likeing Obama's ideas better" is the best reason there is to vote for your choice of candidate. I hope he deserves your support and, if he's elected, that he fulfills everyone's expectations.

 

[littlesteppers]

Right..Tax the snot out of these evil oil companies..Oh hold on..we already tried that and it didn't work..maybe this time it will.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The 1980 WPT didn't work on many levels as shown in the Congressional Research Service's analysis of March 6, 2006:

It reduced domestic oil production and increased our dependence on foreign oil by between 3% and 13% of oil imports;

It raised only $80 b. or 20% of the $393 b. of revenue projected;

It was costly and complicated to administer, particularly for small producers;

It created lots of distortions, favoring new wells over old wells and tax exempt production of state governments, certain parts of Alaska, Indian tribes, charities, educational institutions, and royalty owners. It also shifted investment from extraction and production downstream to refining and marketing. Investment was shifted overseas and jobs and profits went with it.

Why did the 1980 WPT fail so miserably?

It's so difficult to define "profit" that the 1980 WPT Act just arbitrarily taxed a certain portion of the price of crude above arbitrary benchmark amounts. If we adopt another WPT, Congress would almost certainly do the same.

Oil prices fluctuate so wildly, down and up, that no revenue estimate can be made with any accuracy. Furthermore, the macroeconomic effects are equally unpredictable up and down, as shown by this 2005 St. Louis Fed study.

Although some WPT revenues were used to help the poor cope with energy costs through LIHEAP, the bulk of the revenues were kept by the government. LIHEAP became a permanent entitlement.

The lawsuits that arose of the 1980 WPT were staggering in number and in size -- a bonanza to trial lawyers. It took over a decade after the repeal of the WPT in August, 1988 to resolve the last lawsuit.

Although we don't tax oil as heavily as most other developed countries, we still tax it enough that the major oil companies invest all of their cash flow from operations as shown by the Ernst & Young analysis commissioned by the American Petroleum Insitute. (I worked for Ernst & Young from October, 1990 until February, 1992.) Take a close look at the net incomes in Table 1, and you will see that they fluctuate a lot, both low and high, while new investment is made through bad times and good.

I should also note that oil companies still benefit from tax breaks and beneficial regulation, but they also suffer from more adverse regulation and limits on where they can conduct their operations.

Washington has a bad habit of blaming large oil companies for its failure to adopt a coherent energy policy. Let's not compound the problem by adopting a windfall profits tax on oil

 

[loveminis]

Mary Lou has a strong point - Get the FACTS, not someone else's interpretation. I hope the over $250,000 a year income people will have to pay more ! The wealthy get all the tax cuts while us small business owners and such get reamed.

 

[Pepipony]

As far as blaming Dems for raising taxes, anyone ever stop and wonder why? Reagan had the largest deficit of any president. Bush Sr got in with 'read my lips, no new taxes' , realized he couldnt fullfill that promise and bring down Reagans debt, so he lost to Clinton. Who in turn had to raise taxes to pay down Reagans debt. Then Bush Jr got in, first thing on the agenda was how to spend his surplus, then came war and the economy and now Jr has amassed more debt than Reagan did. So, next Prez, whomeveritis is going to have to raise taxes and of course if its McCain, he will be excused but if its Obama, he will be blamed

I do not agree that they need to expand social programs and in one sense I doubt Obama wants many expanded. If you recall it wasnt all that long ago the Jackson said he wanted to , umm, neuter Obama because of his statement about how certain men needed to be daddies not just fathers.

As for oil profits, for decades fuel prices barely moved. Maybe yearly, but not with the market like it is now. They need to go back to being regulated. They dont have the morals ( does ANY large corp anymore?) to deal with trickle down economics.

 

[mrgizzmoe]

what the difference 200,000 or 250,000. if you make that much you should get taxed more than someone making 50,000. i feel as if there is no middle class . your either rich or poor now adays.