Braddock
Agitator
+916|6596|Éire
Lowing, is Obama actually talking about taking people's money and redistributing it? Is he really? Because it doesn't sound like that from what he has outlined in the election race. Are you making your own inferences or is there a clear and detailed Obama proposal that you've seen that is advocating the seizure of other people's earnings for the purpose of redistribution to others?

Lowing's version of things: "Taking money from the person who earned it in order to give it to someone who didn't."

Obama's version of things: "Taking less money in tax from middle income earners and taking more money in tax from high income earners."

Last edited by Braddock (2008-11-04 10:48:52)

FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

The part you're missing, Brad, is the part where he gives some of that money back (in the form of tax credits) to people who already don't pay any taxes. That's essentially taking money from people you think make too much and giving it to people who you think earn too little.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The part you're missing, Brad, is the part where he gives some of that money back (in the form of tax credits) to people who already don't pay any taxes. That's essentially taking money from people you think make too much and giving it to people who you think earn too little.
How exactly does one give a tax break to someone who doesn't pay tax?
It's not a "tax break". It's a "tax credit". Basically a check from the govt.

And I think you've captured the heart of the issue with your question.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6596|Éire

FEOS wrote:

The part you're missing, Brad, is the part where he gives some of that money back (in the form of tax credits) to people who already don't pay any taxes. That's essentially taking money from people you think make too much and giving it to people who you think earn too little.
For tax credits to be of any use you have to be paying tax, do you not? Or are you saying that he's going to actually pay this money out to them in cash?

From what I've heard in his pre-election speeches it just sounds like he's in favour of increasing the tax free allowance for those who earn less and raising it for anything earned over 1/4 of a million per annum. And that to me sounds fair enough.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6596|Éire

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The part you're missing, Brad, is the part where he gives some of that money back (in the form of tax credits) to people who already don't pay any taxes. That's essentially taking money from people you think make too much and giving it to people who you think earn too little.
How exactly does one give a tax break to someone who doesn't pay tax?
It's not a "tax break". It's a "tax credit". Basically a check from the govt.

And I think you've captured the heart of the issue with your question.
I actually misread your post... hence why I deleted my original reply. In case you're wondering.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The part you're missing, Brad, is the part where he gives some of that money back (in the form of tax credits) to people who already don't pay any taxes. That's essentially taking money from people you think make too much and giving it to people who you think earn too little.
For tax credits to be of any use you have to be paying tax, do you not? Or are you saying that he's going to actually pay this money out to them in cash?

From what I've heard in his pre-election speeches it just sounds like he's in favour of increasing the tax free allowance for those who earn less and raising it for anything earned over 1/4 of a million per annum. And that to me sounds fair enough.
He's going to send these people a check...just like Bush did in the incentive package. Except that, since they pay no taxes, it doesn't matter for their next year's return. Basically welfare without the hassle of the accountability associated with it.

And the upper limit varies, depending on which clip you're watching. Everything from $100k/yr to $250k/yr. Biden said $100k, Obama said $200k in his infomercial...which is $50k/yr less than he said during the debates. Clinton did the same thing...promising to only raise taxes on those making over $100k/yr. Then he raised taxes on everyone making $30k/yr or more. Economic is going to bite Obama in the ass--there isn't enough money to tax (even at his exorbitant rates) in the upper 5% to pay for his new spending as well as existing obligations. So the lower limit keeps dropping...just like it did with Clinton.

You've heard part of his proposal. The part that has many people up in arms and crying "socialism" is the part you obviously haven't heard of...the part we're talking about now. Taking money from people who earn "too much" and giving it to those who earn "too little". Of course, that is as determined by his Greatness the Obama.

It is government-mandated wealth redistribution. No two ways about it.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6861

FEOS wrote:

He's going to send these people a check...just like Bush did in the incentive package. Except that, since they pay no taxes, it doesn't matter for their next year's return. Basically welfare without the hassle of the accountability associated with it.

And the upper limit varies, depending on which clip you're watching. Everything from $100k/yr to $250k/yr. Biden said $100k, Obama said $200k in his infomercial...which is $50k/yr less than he said during the debates. Clinton did the same thing...promising to only raise taxes on those making over $100k/yr. Then he raised taxes on everyone making $30k/yr or more. Economic is going to bite Obama in the ass--there isn't enough money to tax (even at his exorbitant rates) in the upper 5% to pay for his new spending as well as existing obligations. So the lower limit keeps dropping...just like it did with Clinton.

You've heard part of his proposal. The part that has many people up in arms and crying "socialism" is the part you obviously haven't heard of...the part we're talking about now. Taking money from people who earn "too much" and giving it to those who earn "too little". Of course, that is as determined by his Greatness the Obama.

It is government-mandated wealth redistribution. No two ways about it.
Doesn't say much about cheques and handouts here - seems mostly to be plain old tax cuts for 95% of America:

http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

In Europe a 'tax credit' is an amount of income upon which you are not charged tax. The entire Irish taxation system revolves around various tax credits and bands. Not the same in USA? Are you sure you haven't misread or misinterpreted things? I'm no expert on his plans I'll admit.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-04 12:16:26)

FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

CameronPoe wrote:

Doesn't say much about cheques and handouts here - seems mostly to be plain old tax cuts for 95% of America:

http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

In Europe a 'tax credit' is an amount of income upon which you are not charged tax. The entire Irish taxation system revolves around various tax credits and bands. Not the same in USA? Are you sure you haven't misread or misinterpreted things? I'm no expert on his plans I'll admit.
Tax credits are not the same thing here. They are basically advances on your next tax return. If you don't pay any taxes, then any advances you get are a net gain for you.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
imortal
Member
+240|6970|Austin, TX

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

He's going to send these people a check...just like Bush did in the incentive package. Except that, since they pay no taxes, it doesn't matter for their next year's return. Basically welfare without the hassle of the accountability associated with it.

And the upper limit varies, depending on which clip you're watching. Everything from $100k/yr to $250k/yr. Biden said $100k, Obama said $200k in his infomercial...which is $50k/yr less than he said during the debates. Clinton did the same thing...promising to only raise taxes on those making over $100k/yr. Then he raised taxes on everyone making $30k/yr or more. Economic is going to bite Obama in the ass--there isn't enough money to tax (even at his exorbitant rates) in the upper 5% to pay for his new spending as well as existing obligations. So the lower limit keeps dropping...just like it did with Clinton.

You've heard part of his proposal. The part that has many people up in arms and crying "socialism" is the part you obviously haven't heard of...the part we're talking about now. Taking money from people who earn "too much" and giving it to those who earn "too little". Of course, that is as determined by his Greatness the Obama.

It is government-mandated wealth redistribution. No two ways about it.
Doesn't say much about cheques and handouts here - seems mostly to be plain old tax cuts for 95% of America:

http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

In Europe a 'tax credit' is an amount of income upon which you are not charged tax. The entire Irish taxation system revolves around various tax credits and bands. Not the same in USA? Are you sure you haven't misread or misinterpreted things? I'm no expert on his plans I'll admit.
Cam, currently our the laws regarding our tax code fill more than 57,000+ pages, and grows with every year.  We have laywers and accountants who specialize not in tax law, but in certain specialized parts of tax law.  It is virtually impossible for anyone to know everything about our screwed up tax code.  So, yes; I may be wrong.  I do not think I am, however.

For a common sense check (always prone to error, I admit):  College students.  How many college students REALLY work enough to need to file taxes (I am talking students 18 - 22; the vast majority of students)?  How many of those students file independently instead of being claimed as dependants by their parents (which their parents can do until after college, if they are helping to pay the tuition)?  Now, if a student IS working while going to school, how likely is it that that student is making enough to not get a refund at tax time anyway?  How much good will a tax credit do to a group who will already get all of their taxes back if they work, if they file themselves?  either a) he is trying to give them money, and not just credit their taxes, or b) his offer is only so much smoke-and mirrors in order to get more votes.  I can't think of a c) that has any substantial probability.
AutralianChainsaw
Member
+65|6504


rofl
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6596|Éire

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Doesn't say much about cheques and handouts here - seems mostly to be plain old tax cuts for 95% of America:

http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

In Europe a 'tax credit' is an amount of income upon which you are not charged tax. The entire Irish taxation system revolves around various tax credits and bands. Not the same in USA? Are you sure you haven't misread or misinterpreted things? I'm no expert on his plans I'll admit.
Tax credits are not the same thing here. They are basically advances on your next tax return. If you don't pay any taxes, then any advances you get are a net gain for you.
If that is the case then I just have to ask... why are Americans so bad at socialism? That is just plain retarded... and he's hidden that fact well in his rhetoric I must say because not one person I've been chatting to has picked up on that little detail. Why aren't any of the news networks stressing that aspect more? Let me guess... left wing bias conspiracy?

You have one guy who wants to just keep giving billionaire companies tax breaks and who lauded the economic policies that eventually led to our current meltdown and another guy who (allegedly) wants to give people free money? Interesting political spectrum you have to choose from there... how exactly did you become the most powerful country in the world again?
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6596|Éire

AutralianChainsaw wrote:



rofl
I watched that the first time and thought "oh no! She thinks she's getting a free meal ticket"... but then I watched it again and, to be fair, saying you're "not going to have to worry about paying the bills" or "filling your gas tank" could just mean you believe you will have an economic climate that will allow regular people to do so without any great difficulty.

Just playing devil's advocate.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Doesn't say much about cheques and handouts here - seems mostly to be plain old tax cuts for 95% of America:

http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

In Europe a 'tax credit' is an amount of income upon which you are not charged tax. The entire Irish taxation system revolves around various tax credits and bands. Not the same in USA? Are you sure you haven't misread or misinterpreted things? I'm no expert on his plans I'll admit.
Tax credits are not the same thing here. They are basically advances on your next tax return. If you don't pay any taxes, then any advances you get are a net gain for you.
If that is the case then I just have to ask... why are Americans so bad at socialism? That is just plain retarded... and he's hidden that fact well in his rhetoric I must say because not one person I've been chatting to has picked up on that little detail. Why aren't any of the news networks stressing that aspect more? Let me guess... left wing bias conspiracy?

You have one guy who wants to just keep giving billionaire companies tax breaks and who lauded the economic policies that eventually led to our current meltdown and another guy who (allegedly) wants to give people free money? Interesting political spectrum you have to choose from there... how exactly did you become the most powerful country in the world again?
So I see you've bought the DNC talking points, as well.

How did we become the most powerful country in the world? Because as flawed as we are, we're still better than the rest of you.

Spoiler (highlight to read):
j/k
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6596|Éire

FEOS wrote:

So I see you've bought the DNC talking points, as well.

How did we become the most powerful country in the world? Because as flawed as we are, we're still better than the rest of you.

Spoiler (highlight to read):
j/k
I'm having difficulty believing anything I hear about American politicians or their policies these days.

I would have thought that someone in the media would have picked up on the fact that one of the candidates was proposing an economic policy that a down syndrome child wouldn't dare put forward in the most idiotic of socialist, European nations. If a candidate here in Ireland said he was going to write blank cheques for freeloaders he'd be strung up by the short and curlies by the media... why isn't that happening in the States? Either it isn't actually the truth or the media are all fucking dunces? The liberal biased media conspiracy doesn't fly because I've been watching Fox international and I haven't heard diddly.

Are there any reliable sources online? From the horse's mouth so to speak?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6957|USA

IG-Calibre wrote:

i'd say your wee war profiteering caper will be finishing soon Lowing. Then I hope President Obama Taxes the fuck out of your ill gotten gains.. I love irony..
"war profiteer" yyyyyyyyaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnn!!!!
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6649|tropical regions of london
The bottom line is 18 pages long.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6596|Éire

God Save the Queen wrote:

The bottom line is 18 pages long.
Lol!
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6957|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. I have never made any bones about it Cam, I do not talk about global economics for a few reasons, the least of which is I simply do not care nor do I pretend to, care or understand it. You, of course the arrogant, all knowing Cam, know everything about everything and all before ya hit 30. Not Bad!. I try to keep my posts in this thread about the OP, and Obamas socialist agenda to take money from a person who earned it and give it to someone who he thinks should have it more than you. I speak of how I do not want to live in a socialist country because I choose to work for myself instead of the collective. If I want to be selfish I should be allowed, after all it is my money. I do not like someone telling me what I am supposed to do with my money. Anyway, back to economics, there is not a single person who is working and NOT living beyond their means, who is in trouble. I happen to be one of those people now. I got myself out without any social programs. Do not live beyond your means and in massive debt and you will have no problem.

What you are trying to do is tell me because I am not an economics major that there is no way I could understand what Obama is doing and why. This is your arrogant ass govt. lapdog socialism coming out. Nothing more. By the way, I think your govt. says it is feeding time, so go see what is in your bowl.
Keep on revelling. Oh and ftr we weren't talking about global economics - a point clarified earlier - we were talking about national economics. Go look for your next feeding bowl in a distant dusty nation upon whom your government decides to rain down bombs. It's great when you don't have to rely on the domestic economy of your own nation to keep earning, isn't it? I'll keep working at what I do best and try to adhere to my principles. My promotion kicks in on November 14th. Yay!

lowing wrote:

3. I do know that labor and managment co-exist Cam, I know because I am a part of this relationship, you know who isn't? People on who do not work. Go lecture them.

"I think everyone should be entitled to a job and if those willing to work can't then that must be addressed through governmental action." <-----NO Cam, you are not "ENTITLED" to shit except the rights and freedoms guarenteed by our Constituion. I thought you did not like that word entitlement yet you do nothing except prove my point. You feel a sense of entitlement for people. I feel a sense of opportunity for the people.
I think the government has a duty to provide opportunity to the populace. The populace are ENTITLED to the opportunity to work and feed themselves and their families. Whatever it takes to facilitate bringing forward that opportunity should be the task of the government. I know you disagree with this. You prefer to rely on the whims of the job exporters and corrupt oligarchs and lobbyists who buy off elected officials.

lowing wrote:

4. I will be happy when this war is won and our troops can come home. Until then I will do what I can to improve their systems to make their jobs safer and even save more of their lives.
And keeping your arm outstretched to the incumbent and incoming President and Defence Minister.... How do you measure a 'win', pray tell? lol
1. Cam, I am not going to be on the defensive about my job with you. I have spent over 20 years in all aspects of aviation.  Say whatever you will, your cyber perch sitting is nothing more than mere amusement.

3. "I think the government has a duty to provide opportunity to the populace."<---------Now you are changing your tune, last post it was entitlement, now you are telling it is opportunity, ok then we agree. The govt. does provide opportunity to succeed it is called the Constitution

People are not ENTITLED to a job. Tht is not the govts. function. Jobs are not owned by society, jobs are owned by the people who built the companies. There is no ENTITLEMENT to a job. This is where you and I difffer greatly apparently. I believe you have to work and earn a quality of life. YOU are not "ENTITLED" to it. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, I wonder who pays for all of this ENTITLEMENT in your world.

4. Ya mean feel free to keep my arm outstretched to the govt.......................................LIKE YOU?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6957|USA

DonFck wrote:

lowing wrote:

I do not agree with Obama's plan to literally take money from one person, not for the purposes of running the govt., but to give it to someone else who he thinks is entitled to it more than the person who earned it.
What the fuck do you call taxes, lowing?

TimmmmaaaaH wrote:

Perhaps some are taking the "spreading the wealth" a bit more literally than others.
That's one hell of an understatement.
Already said I have no problem with taxes, when it is used for the functions of running the govt. To give money earned by one person, to another because the govt. thinks that person deserves your money more than you do, is not the function of govt.
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7022

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So I see you've bought the DNC talking points, as well.

How did we become the most powerful country in the world? Because as flawed as we are, we're still better than the rest of you.

Spoiler (highlight to read):
j/k
I'm having difficulty believing anything I hear about American politicians or their policies these days.

I would have thought that someone in the media would have picked up on the fact that one of the candidates was proposing an economic policy that a down syndrome child wouldn't dare put forward in the most idiotic of socialist, European nations. If a candidate here in Ireland said he was going to write blank cheques for freeloaders he'd be strung up by the short and curlies by the media... why isn't that happening in the States? Either it isn't actually the truth or the media are all fucking dunces? The liberal biased media conspiracy doesn't fly because I've been watching Fox international and I haven't heard diddly.

Are there any reliable sources online? From the horse's mouth so to speak?
the liberal media has been in OB's pocket since day 1... that's a fact in the US... even liberals agree with that...(if they are honest lol)
FOX leans conservative(shocker) but at least they offer a bit of balance... Brit Hume, much to my dismay tells it like it is...

I spoke with an older family members... who is 66 years old... and he said he has never seen in all his life how biased the media is for a candidate...

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2008-11-04 17:28:55)

Love is the answer
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6957|USA

Braddock wrote:

Lowing, is Obama actually talking about taking people's money and redistributing it? Is he really? Because it doesn't sound like that from what he has outlined in the election race. Are you making your own inferences or is there a clear and detailed Obama proposal that you've seen that is advocating the seizure of other people's earnings for the purpose of redistribution to others?

Lowing's version of things: "Taking money from the person who earned it in order to give it to someone who didn't."

Obama's version of things: "Taking less money in tax from middle income earners and taking more money in tax from high income earners."
You can look up his own quotes.

He has stated he wants to "spread the wealth around" pretty tough to spread the wealth of the poor around can we agree on this? He also said when pinned down on the issue that is "neighborliness" and "nice" thing to do. It is not the govts. job t odecide how nice or neighborly I am to be.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

If a candidate here in Ireland said he was going to write blank cheques for freeloaders he'd be strung up by the short and curlies by the media... why isn't that happening in the States?
Because it's CHANGE we can HOPE for. By CHANGING...and stuff. In a HOPEFUL way.

Here's some info:

Obama's tax plan socialist? No, but ...
People who don't pay federal taxes would get billions
Wednesday,  October 22, 2008 3:17 AM

There is an element of truth in McCain's attacks: Obama's plan would provide a $500 refundable tax credit to low- and middle-income Americans. At least 40 percent of those who would receive the credit do not pay federal income taxes but do pay Social Security taxes and state and local sales taxes.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-11-04 17:36:22)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
MGS3_GrayFox
Member
+50|6473

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

If a candidate here in Ireland said he was going to write blank cheques for freeloaders he'd be strung up by the short and curlies by the media... why isn't that happening in the States?
Because it's CHANGE we can HOPE for. By CHANGING...and stuff. In a HOPEFUL way.
Oh, I guess McCain was all for change too then.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6596|Éire

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Lowing, is Obama actually talking about taking people's money and redistributing it? Is he really? Because it doesn't sound like that from what he has outlined in the election race. Are you making your own inferences or is there a clear and detailed Obama proposal that you've seen that is advocating the seizure of other people's earnings for the purpose of redistribution to others?

Lowing's version of things: "Taking money from the person who earned it in order to give it to someone who didn't."

Obama's version of things: "Taking less money in tax from middle income earners and taking more money in tax from high income earners."
You can look up his own quotes.

He has stated he wants to "spread the wealth around" pretty tough to spread the wealth of the poor around can we agree on this? He also said when pinned down on the issue that is "neighborliness" and "nice" thing to do. It is not the govts. job t odecide how nice or neighborly I am to be.
With all due respect FEOS that's still too vague. One can't just presume the finer details of his economic policies from the phrase "spread the wealth around". I think the wider public have inferred from that that he merely wishes to stop giving the big companies an easy ride while they get stinking rich on tax breaks while regular working stiffs struggle by, paying proportionately higher rates of tax.

It's all immaterial at this stage anyways as it looks like Obama has won.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6957|USA

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So I see you've bought the DNC talking points, as well.

How did we become the most powerful country in the world? Because as flawed as we are, we're still better than the rest of you.

Spoiler (highlight to read):
j/k
I'm having difficulty believing anything I hear about American politicians or their policies these days.

I would have thought that someone in the media would have picked up on the fact that one of the candidates was proposing an economic policy that a down syndrome child wouldn't dare put forward in the most idiotic of socialist, European nations. If a candidate here in Ireland said he was going to write blank cheques for freeloaders he'd be strung up by the short and curlies by the media... why isn't that happening in the States? Either it isn't actually the truth or the media are all fucking dunces? The liberal biased media conspiracy doesn't fly because I've been watching Fox international and I haven't heard diddly.

Are there any reliable sources online? From the horse's mouth so to speak?
It is getting a free pass by most news outlets, it is the same thing with Obamas questionable relationships, it is downplayed and denied. The big concern and controversy however, is Sarah Palin wardrobe.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard