Obama v. McCain

[Jeff05]

for all those going into anesthesiology - you WILL make over 250k/yr.

if obama wins

1. federal income tax goes to 39.5%. HOWEVER, if you are a business owner (own pain management practice, run an anesthesia group, etc) you will pay over 50%. that's JUST federal income tax.

2. social security taxes will not hit not just the first 102k you make, but everything over 250k. HOWEVER, if you are self-employed these will be over 12%.

3. capital gains taxes will go to 20-24% (from 15). this is the biggest hit BY FAR. this will eat 10% of your retirement funding.

these taxes will not go to paying down the deficit, or "nation building" - they will go as tax cuts for the "95% of all americans." the deficit will remain roughly equivalent.

can you smell what the rock is cooking? all of you will be in the top 5%, if not top 1% of all americans as far as pay is concerned.

here is what it looks like if i open a pain management practice and make 400k/yr.

mccain tax: 400k*35% + 102K*6% = about 146k in federal taxes

obama tax: 400k*50% (primary small business owner) + 102k*12% + (400k-250k)*12% = 230K in federal taxes.

OVERNIGHT, i pay 84k/yr MORE IN just federal taxes!!!!!

i guess if you are ok with paying that much more...vote for obama. it's your choice. i think it's clear what my choice will be. (i haven't even touched other issues...)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BLADEMDA]

That may be the best case scenario, economically speaking. But specifically where will McCain cut spending? I can't find any instances of programs to be actually downsized or eliminated on his web site. A number of projects he supports, perhaps at less cost than Obama, but I don't see anything being cut. Lots of bold claims that he'll create savings through "competition" etc but this rhetoric is as empty as most of Obama's sunshine & butterfly hope.

Anyway, it's likely a moot point now. McCain has failed to kick Palin to the curb, his biggest continuing mistake since he picked her, and once Thursday's VP debate is done I'm afraid he's stuck with her. He's as far behind in the national polls as he's ever been, the electoral map is bluer than it's been all year, the first debate was at best a tie (though most give the nod to Obama). Obama would have to be caught snorting coke off dead underage male prostitute's body to lose this thing now.

President Obama. I sure hope he's the messiah they say he is, because he and a solidly democratic Congress are what we're going to get.

Nice Post. I agree with you.

 

[BLADEMDA]

for all those going into anesthesiology - you WILL make over 250k/yr.

if obama wins

1. federal income tax goes to 39.5%. HOWEVER, if you are a business owner (own pain management practice, run an anesthesia group, etc) you will pay over 50%. that's JUST federal income tax.

2. social security taxes will not hit not just the first 102k you make, but everything over 250k. HOWEVER, if you are self-employed these will be over 12%.

3. capital gains taxes will go to 20-24% (from 15). this is the biggest hit BY FAR. this will eat 10% of your retirement funding.

these taxes will not go to paying down the deficit, or "nation building" - they will go as tax cuts for the "95% of all americans." the deficit will remain roughly equivalent.

can you smell what the rock is cooking? all of you will be in the top 5%, if not top 1% of all americans as far as pay is concerned.

here is what it looks like if i open a pain management practice and make 400k/yr.

mccain tax: 400k*35% + 102K*6% = about 146k in federal taxes

obama tax: 400k*50% (primary small business owner) + 102k*12% + (400k-250k)*12% = 230K in federal taxes.

OVERNIGHT, i pay 84k/yr MORE IN just federal taxes!!!!!

i guess if you are ok with paying that much more...vote for obama. it's your choice. i think it's clear what my choice will be. (i haven't even touched other issues...)

Yes, that is my point exactly. Obama is NOT going to pay down the National debt with our money. He is going spend it ALL on NEW social programs when we can't even pay for the existing ones.

 

[pgg]

Yes, that is my point exactly. Obama is NOT going to pay down the National debt with our money. He is going spend it ALL on NEW social programs when we can't even pay for the existing ones.

What do you think are the odds that we'll actually get any kind of national health care from either McCain or Obama?

They'll both keep talking about universal coverage because it's a super popular idea and probably political suicide to admit we can't afford it. But given the massive expense of the impending economic bailout, once the election's done, either one will probably backtrack, reluctantly citing the economy/deficit/debt.

I'm not sure even Obama and a democratic Congress could pass an expensive new entitlement in the face of trillion dollar deficits.

 

[BLADEMDA]

What do you think are the odds that we'll actually get any kind of national health care from either McCain or Obama?

They'll both keep talking about universal coverage because it's a super popular idea and probably political suicide to admit we can't afford it. But given the massive expense of the impending economic bailout, once the election's done, either one will probably backtrack, reluctantly citing the economy/deficit/debt.

I'm not sure even Obama and a democratic Congress could pass an expensive new entitlement in the face of trillion dollar deficits.

Correct Again.

 

[badasshairday]

If McCain is going to stand a chance, Palin needs to step down. He needs a better running mate. Not somebody like this:
[youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU&feature=related[/youtube]

This is the real thing, yet it seems just like the SNL skits.

 

[coprolalia]

Actually, this thread doesn't need a kitten, it needs a bunny...

-copro

 

[pgg]

If McCain is going to stand a chance, Palin needs to step down. He needs a better running mate. Not somebody like this:

This is the real thing, yet it seems just like the SNL skits.

Shhhhh ... there are still people around here who will argue that Palin is an asset to McCain's campaign, because ... uh ... well, something about rallying the troops in red states they were going to win anyway, I guess.

If there was a window for her to gracefully step down and focus on her family or governing Alaska, it's past. If she quits or gets fired now, it just makes McCain look worse for having picked her in the first place.

 

[pgg]

Actually, this thread doesn't need a kitten, it needs a bunny...

It's missing a pancake ...

Hotlinked from here, in case I get .htaccessowned ...

 

[surrender903]

Yes, that is my point exactly. Obama is NOT going to pay down the National debt with our money. He is going spend it ALL on NEW social programs when we can't even pay for the existing ones.

can i have a citation for this?

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/22/obamas-spending-plan/


http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3272

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/6028531.html

The REALITY is a President McCain would COMPROMISE with a Democratic Congress and adopt a tax code similar to Bill Clinton's.

But, a President Obama could get enough votes to pass RECKLESS, new federal programs we can't afford while adopting a far more draconian tax code.

McCain is more likely to hold the line on spending while raising taxes slightly. The net result would be a lower federal deficit.

 

[deleted50478]

Relatively detailed article about Barack and McCain's heathcare plans. Don't read it if you prefer the usual misinformation, spin, and lies.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/html/bp104/bp104index.html

Another article:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9616

"According to the Congressional Budget Office, unless spending is brought under control, the federal government will eventually consume as much as 35% of our GDP. Paying for a government that size would require raising both the corporate tax rate and top income tax rate from their current 35% to 88%, the current 25% tax rate for middle-income workers to 63%, and the 10% tax bracket for low-income workers to 25%. The impact on workers, businesses and the economy at large would be catastrophic.

Far from restraining the growth of government, Obama is proposing program after program of new spending. According to the most recent tally from the National Taxpayers Union, he has laid out $343 billion per year in new government spending."

 

[Lonestar]

You guys are missing the point.

This election is not about fairness or electing the most qualified candidate.

This is an affirmative action election.

Just like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack.

We are watching what affirmative action did to the housing market.

Now, this country ready for affirmative action for the presidency.

This guy is an undisputable economic genius. Anybody disagree.

Obama just doesn't have it. His economic policy would have given lots more money to Freddy and Fannie if it wasn't for latest economic slowdown. Once the public's eye is off the crisis the dems will try to relax regulation for fannie and freddy once again.

Apparently, the democrats and obama have not learned from history. They will tax this country to death before they abandon all of their "universal" programs; ya know, like the "universal" housing program that is causing havoc on wallstreet.

 

[pgg]

This election is not about fairness or electing the most qualified candidate.

You're right - this isn't so much an election year as it is a "Bush un-election" year.

What's remarkable is that despite the Bush handicap and McCain's unprecedentedly horrific campaign management, that he's still in it at all.

 

[badasshairday]

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

 

[KNC]

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

You know...that really does look like Bush......

 

[deleted50478]

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

The '$5 Trillion Surplus' - The Myth that Refuses to Die
http://www.theneweditor.com/index.p...ion-Surplus-The-Myth-that-Refuses-to-Die.html
"During an appearance on Meet the Press, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi repeated one of the biggest myths coming out of the Clinton presidency: that the federal debt had been erased, and that we had more than a $5 trillion surplus.

This is totally false.

Here's the transcript from Meet the Press:
REP. PELOSI: ... We came out of the Clinton years $5.6 trillion dollars in surplus, surplus. The Bush policies turn that around. Now we’re $9 trillion dollars debt ceiling when we could’ve been eight—debt-free as a nation by 2008.
There was never a $5.6 trillion surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration.

There was at the end of FY 2001, however, about $3.3 trillion in debt held in federal treasuries, and about $5.7 trillion worth of total debt, including that existing in trust funds and other government accounts.

Read the data here.

The claims that we had erased the federal debt and had gone on to a surplus were based on long-range projections that were totally inaccurate, and had never been realized.

Why then do the Dems continue to repeat this myth?"

 

[badasshairday]

The '$5 Trillion Surplus' - The Myth that Refuses to Die
http://www.theneweditor.com/index.p...ion-Surplus-The-Myth-that-Refuses-to-Die.html
"During an appearance on Meet the Press, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi repeated one of the biggest myths coming out of the Clinton presidency: that the federal debt had been erased, and that we had more than a $5 trillion surplus.

This is totally false.

Here's the transcript from Meet the Press:
REP. PELOSI: ... We came out of the Clinton years $5.6 trillion dollars in surplus, surplus. The Bush policies turn that around. Now we’re $9 trillion dollars debt ceiling when we could’ve been eight—debt-free as a nation by 2008.
There was never a $5.6 trillion surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration.

There was at the end of FY 2001, however, about $3.3 trillion in debt held in federal treasuries, and about $5.7 trillion worth of total debt, including that existing in trust funds and other government accounts.

Read the data here.

The claims that we had erased the federal debt and had gone on to a surplus were based on long-range projections that were totally inaccurate, and had never been realized.

Why then do the Dems continue to repeat this myth?"

I never said anything about 5.7 trillion dollar surplus. That is just ridiculous. I was talking about year to year budget surplus. Basically spending less then what was budgeted for by the federal government. And the fact is that Clinton had years of budget surpluses on the order of 200billion one of the years. The budget surplus was to pay down the national debt which was around 5-6 trillion dollars.

 

[badasshairday]

Here are important exerpts from that article,

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

The article is from Sept 27, 2000. The end of the glory years.

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."
Clinton
President Clinton announces that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 is the largest in U.S. history

Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.

This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."

Maybe this is where the trillion dollar figure comes from?

In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

^^^^ it had a chance of coming if we didn't have num nuts as president over the last 8 years.

Bush should of took Clinton's advice:

"The key to fiscal discipline is maintaining these results year after year. We need to put our priorities in order," Clinton said.

And just wow:

"This is part of our fiscal discipline to reduce the debt with the federal surplus," said one White House official who asked not to be identified. Reducing the debt, the official said, has "real effects for real Americans." It means lower interest ... and leads to an increase in investment and more jobs."

It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.

The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.

I don't know anything about a 5.7 trillion dollar surplus, that is ridiculous. The national debt at the time was 5.7 trillion dollars.

 

[deleted50478]

I you made my dog president at the beginning of an economic upturn and an enormous tech bubble, he would preside over a strong economy.

If you made Friedrich Hayek president just before a economic bubble burst, even he would probably preside over an economic downturn.

Also, the "surplus" was mostly an accounting gimmick involving social security receipts.

Also, it is unreasonable to label W a fiscal conservative.

 

[badasshairday]

I you made my dog president at the beginning of an economic upturn and an enormous tech bubble, he would preside over a strong economy.

If you made Friedrich Hayek president just before a economic bubble burst, even he would probably preside over an economic downturn.

I agree, but policies must have been in place to allow for such an upswing.

Also, it is unreasonable to label W a fiscal conservative.

I guess I have to agree with you here.

 

[Leverage]

I you made my dog president at the beginning of an economic upturn and an enormous tech bubble, he would preside over a strong economy.

If you made Friedrich Hayek president just before a economic bubble burst, even he would probably preside over an economic downturn.

Also, the "surplus" was mostly an accounting gimmick involving social security receipts.

Also, it is unreasonable to label W a fiscal conservative.

at least someone gets it

 

[jenegie]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you had already concluded your opinion about Palin before you heard Damon give his.

Still, a society that gives so much credence to Hollywood as to seek their opinion on those running for political office is frankly, ******ed.

Would you still be patting yourself on the back if you heard Michael Vick lambast Palin?

Seriously, stop using the word "******ed"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[DOAnestMan]

I don't know why people think a government surplus is a good thing. If you went to a store and paid $20 for an item that cost $15 and the store kept the change, thus giving them a $5 surplus, I doubt people would think that was good. If you suddenly substitute the government for the store and imagine your taxes being held without rebating to you the "surplus" above what the government spends it doesn't make it a good idea.

 

[deleted50478]

I don't know why people think a government surplus is a good thing. If you went to a store and paid $20 for an item that cost $15 and the store kept the change, thus giving them a $5 surplus, I doubt people would think that was good. If you suddenly substitute the government for the store and imagine your taxes being held without rebating to you the "surplus" above what the government spends it doesn't make it a good idea.

It's more like if your monthly minimum credit card bill is $145 on your $30000 balance. Paying $150 off one month isn't really a 'surplus' but it's better than sending $135.

 

[badasshairday]

^^^ I see your point. But it is a good thing when you have $ to pay down some of the national debt.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

for all those going into anesthesiology - you WILL make over 250k/yr.

if obama wins

1. federal income tax goes to 39.5%. HOWEVER, if you are a business owner (own pain management practice, run an anesthesia group, etc) you will pay over 50%. that's JUST federal income tax.

2. social security taxes will not hit not just the first 102k you make, but everything over 250k. HOWEVER, if you are self-employed these will be over 12%.

3. capital gains taxes will go to 20-24% (from 15). this is the biggest hit BY FAR. this will eat 10% of your retirement funding.

these taxes will not go to paying down the deficit, or "nation building" - they will go as tax cuts for the "95% of all americans." the deficit will remain roughly equivalent.

can you smell what the rock is cooking? all of you will be in the top 5%, if not top 1% of all americans as far as pay is concerned.

here is what it looks like if i open a pain management practice and make 400k/yr.

mccain tax: 400k*35% + 102K*6% = about 146k in federal taxes

obama tax: 400k*50% (primary small business owner) + 102k*12% + (400k-250k)*12% = 230K in federal taxes.

OVERNIGHT, i pay 84k/yr MORE IN just federal taxes!!!!!

i guess if you are ok with paying that much more...vote for obama. it's your choice. i think it's clear what my choice will be. (i haven't even touched other issues...)

I'm ok with paying that much more.

 

[mille125]

for all those going into anesthesiology - you WILL make over 250k/yr.

if obama wins

1. federal income tax goes to 39.5%. HOWEVER, if you are a business owner (own pain management practice, run an anesthesia group, etc) you will pay over 50%. that's JUST federal income tax.

2. social security taxes will not hit not just the first 102k you make, but everything over 250k. HOWEVER, if you are self-employed these will be over 12%.

3. capital gains taxes will go to 20-24% (from 15). this is the biggest hit BY FAR. this will eat 10% of your retirement funding.

these taxes will not go to paying down the deficit, or "nation building" - they will go as tax cuts for the "95% of all americans." the deficit will remain roughly equivalent.

can you smell what the rock is cooking? all of you will be in the top 5%, if not top 1% of all americans as far as pay is concerned.

here is what it looks like if i open a pain management practice and make 400k/yr.

mccain tax: 400k*35% + 102K*6% = about 146k in federal taxes

obama tax: 400k*50% (primary small business owner) + 102k*12% + (400k-250k)*12% = 230K in federal taxes.

OVERNIGHT, i pay 84k/yr MORE IN just federal taxes!!!!!

i guess if you are ok with paying that much more...vote for obama. it's your choice. i think it's clear what my choice will be. (i haven't even touched other issues...)

if you open a pain practice and you are paying yourself 400K in W2 income then you deserve any ill fate that may come to you for being a fool

 

[RabbMD]

The fact of the matter is Obama's plan IS socialism. He is proposing a 5-10% tax hike on income over 250k in order to give everyone under a income level a REFUNDABLE tax credit. That is wealth redistribution. Why is that any different than raising the taxes on those making over $250K $100K a year and giving $10K to 10 people? Where do you draw then line to what is "fair and Patriotic" according to Joe Biden? I have been practicing 2 years after residency. I did not benefit from "lower taxes" for years under GWB or Clinton. So why is a politician redistributing my hard earned wealth? Why stop there and not just take 90% of what I make and give it to others regardless of their talents, work ethic, or priorities? Who is messiah figure Obama and the Socialist leaning congress the ones to decide what percentage of my income I should give to the poor? I currently give generously to charities that I KNOW by researching are effective. Do you think Government giving $1000 or $10000 to every "citizen" is going to be effective charity and lead people out of poverty?

Additionally, I keep hearing Obama argue that he's just restoring the tax brackets to what they were under Reagon (notice he is proposing raising them HIGHER than they were even under Clinton, who was a conservative demacrat unlike this socialist OBama/Rangel/Pelosi agenda). But without tying the incomes theses rates hit at to inflation the actual percentages are fairly meaningless, especially when you consider how easy it is to bury itemized deduction phaseouts to further soak the "wealth" under complex income tax codes.

 

[Bertelman]

i guess if you are ok with paying that much more...vote for obama. it's your choice. i think it's clear what my choice will be. (i haven't even touched other issues...)

Sadly, when I hear others in my residency program talk about their presidential choice, it is usually distilled into the tax $ they will be paying as a freshly minted anesthesiologist.

I think there's much much more to this election.

 

[lane]

FYI: links to each candidate's essay on healthcare in the NEJM...

Obama: http://click.jwatch.org/cts/click?q=227;67048325;JhQkU7fv662MJ7pj1gcltynZilykXuLJi6W2o4a8WH4=
McCain:http://click.jwatch.org/cts/click?q=227;67048325;JhQkU7fv662MJ7pj1gcltyavi/mFAbVci6W2o4a8WH4=

 

[RabbMD]

Sadly, when I hear others in my residency program talk about their presidential choice, it is usually distilled into the tax $ they will be paying as a freshly minted anesthesiologist.

I think there's much much more to this election.

So I will take this as meaning you are OK with increased socialism and would gladly donate 100K per year to give 10 other people 10K a year? I agree there are other issues, but just ignoring Obama's socialistic trends GIVEN the Pelosi/Rangel coalition in congress is not going to make it go away.

I have yet to hear one valid argument in favor of 1000 refundible tax credits paid for my increasing taxes on anyone who makes over 250K. That is class warfare.

 

[jwk]

Sadly, when I hear others in my residency program talk about their presidential choice, it is usually distilled into the tax $ they will be paying as a freshly minted anesthesiologist.

I think there's much much more to this election.

You bet there is. Socialism in many forms, an anti-business environment that will force even more jobs overseas, clueless foreign policy, clueless environmental policy, etc.

 

[starsop93]

So I will take this as meaning you are OK with increased socialism and would gladly donate 100K per year to give 10 other people 10K a year? I agree there are other issues, but just ignoring Obama's socialistic trends GIVEN the Pelosi/Rangel coalition in congress is not going to make it go away.

I have yet to hear one valid argument in favor of 1000 refundible tax credits paid for my increasing taxes on anyone who makes over 250K. That is class warfare.

What do you call McCain's plan to buy $300 billion worth of forclosing mortgages to allow people to stay in their houses? Sounds like wealth redistribution to me. The free market always is really poplular when the economy is booming, but gets much more unpalatable when it tanks. Without some social programs there is nothing for the elderly, the poor, or the children of the poor when things are bad.

Given the $10 trillion deficit, if McCain DOESN'T raise taxes this country is screwed. It IS patriotic to pay taxes. If you want to trash and not support the military, you can do that by refusing to pay taxes. If you want this country to be a crappy, 3rd world loose coaltion of failing states, then you should refuse to pay taxes. Wanting a weak, poorly influential, failing USA is not patriotic. Oh and Sarah Palin supports a party that advocates for SECESSION of Alaska!!! Clearly a Patriot...

 

[deleted50478]

Who is messiah figure Obama and the Socialist leaning congress the ones to decide what percentage of my income I should give to the poor?

Exactly. Democrats are total hypocrites. They don't want to give to charity. They want to take credit for giving YOUR money to charity. Biden gives $369 dollars a year to charity. Obama gave less than 1% of his income to charity from 2000-2004, but they would love to take $80,000 of your dollars to buy votes with. Wow! What generous democrats! Giving is easy when you are a scumbag hypocrite like Obama and Biden, you can be so generous with other peoples money.

 

[badasshairday]

Alright, let's talk socialism.

The Republicans are the biggest socialists in the history of this country. You just need to have a very high net worth before you get access to participate in their programs. Actually, if you want to look at the amount of socialism the Republicans are responsible for in dollar value, they're the biggest socialists in the history of the world.

The Republicans cry "socialism" because the Dems want to invest a few hundred million in, say, school lunches for inner city high schools.

But the Republicans have NO problem giving $35 Billion of TAXPAYER money to bail out Bear Stearns?

The Republicans cry "we need personal responsibility!" when they tightened personal Bankruptcy laws.

But they have NO problem giving out $85 Billion in TAXPAYER money to bail out AIG?

The Fed currently has rotating credit facilites upwards of $680 Billion in which they are loaning money to Wall Street at low interest rates, to help provide liquidity so that the banks can try to operate while carrying carnage from bad speculative bets. If I go to Vegas and charge up my credit card, can I go to the Fed and ask for a low interest loan too?! He ll NO!

They give out multi-billion "no-bid contracts" to people (Dick Cheney's Halliburton, for example) who have connections to the administration. They give out sugar coated deals, such as the air force refueling tanker deal, that have rigged pricing to people who have connections to the administration.

The Republicans have presided over the biggest expansion of the Federal Government in the history of this nation. They have bloated the budgets and now have run deficits that have resulted in debt ($10T), and unfunded obligations ($53T) that literally are higher than the entire GDP of the planet.

Where has the money gone? Has it helped the average American wage earner? Nope. The average American household wage rate has been in steady decline since 2000. So much for "trickle down" economics.

The GOP... the Gangster Oligarch Party. Coming soon to a town near you to drain out your savings, devalue your nest egg, and lower your personal income... so they can use your hard earned money as investment collateral to keep their ponzi scheme going. It's sickening.

 

[badasshairday]

Exactly. Democrats are total hypocrites. They don't want to give to charity. They want to take credit for giving YOUR money to charity. Biden gives $369 dollars a year to charity. Obama gave less than 1% of his income to charity from 2000-2004, but they would love to take $80,000 of your dollars to buy votes with. Wow! What generous democrats! Giving is easy when you are a scumbag hypocrite like Obama and Biden, you can be so generous with other peoples money.

See my above post about who is using the most of YOUR money as charity for screw ups.

 

[RabbMD]

It is one thing to raise taxes to pay for federal spending. While I would be upset about that because I think we as a country have promised WAY more than we should have and we need to cut spending, I can at least understand that. However that is not what savior Obama is proposing. He is proposing to raise taxes only on the "wealthy." Those making >250K are wealthy in his view. Now if he only raised taxes on the wealthy and used that to pay for more federal programs that would again upset me, but it at least is understandable.... BUT what I don't understand is to overall CUT tax revenue IE increasing the deficit by RAISING taxes on people who make over 250K by 5-10% (depends on how you count the social security tax cap removal) in order to CUT taxes and GIVE FREE HANDOUTS in the form of a REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT of $1000 per family. In essence he is charging the "rich" $10,000 more a year in taxes in order to give $1000 a year to 10 people who already don't pay taxes.

There are many other issues, the federal bailout is not socialism per se, and while it pisses me off it will likely in the long run end up making the government money, even Warren Buffet Obama's sage says so. However, taking $10,000 of my tax money and giving it to 10 people for no reason aside from being in America is senseless. At least if I kept the money I could invest it in the falling market (which if you know any economics is far more likely to expand GDP that just spending it in the long run) or I could spend it just as easily as the 10 people who the government is deciding should have the money I earned.


So I admit I am biased, but I have never heard anyone explain why paying 10 people $1000 so they can buy their cadillac escolades on credit is patriotic... So bleeding hearts, please explain it to me.

 

[starsop93]

He is proposing to raise taxes only on the "wealthy." Those making >250K are wealthy in his view.

Those making >$250 thousand ARE wealthy.

That doesn't mean they don't also have to make hard choices or watch what they spend. Nevertheless, I never feel like I'm strapped for cash, and almost never have to look at the price of my food before I buy it. I could sell my house for a loss and STILL buy a new one if I wanted to. I make a bit more than that, but still in the same area. Oh, and I haven't even been in practice for long.

That's wealthy as far as most of the country is concerned. You're not going to get a lot of people to sympathize with you if you can't live comfortably on $250 thousand.

 

[morpheus md]

Those making >$250 thousand ARE wealthy.

That doesn't mean they don't also have to make hard choices or watch what they spend. Nevertheless, I never feel like I'm strapped for cash, and almost never have to look at the price of my food before I buy it. I could sell my house for a loss and STILL buy a new one if I wanted to. I make a bit more than that, but still in the same area. Oh, and I haven't even been in practice for long.

That's wealthy as far as most of the country is concerned. You're not going to get a lot of people to sympathize with you if you can't live comfortably on $250 thousand.

A newly minted attending making $250 K, while carrying $300K in debt for his and his spouses education, with no savings and no retirement, and not owning a home is NOT rich. Dude, I don't know what planet you are from, but some of us have paid and/or borrowed our own way through school, and are now being asked to finance other people's problems right as we are finally reaching the light at the end of the tunnel. I have lived on a much tighter budget than most of those "middle class" that expect a bailout of this economic mess with no contribution on their part.

Maybe you come from the same place as Joe Biden, where that is considered "fair", but where I come from, that is bull sh it. I can't vote for McCain, because he and Palin scare the crap out of me, and I am not a 1 issue voter, but we as a country are in this together, and trying to right the economy while having 95% of tax payers make no extra sacrifice while 5% make up the difference is not "fair".

 

[mille125]

So I will take this as meaning you are OK with increased socialism and would gladly donate 100K per year to give 10 other people 10K a year? I agree there are other issues, but just ignoring Obama's socialistic trends GIVEN the Pelosi/Rangel coalition in congress is not going to make it go away.

I have yet to hear one valid argument in favor of 1000 refundible tax credits paid for my increasing taxes on anyone who makes over 250K. That is class warfare.

This is going to be a dissenting opinion in a forum filled with people who make over 250K, but my goal is to edify not to antagonize. Many in this forum seem to think that lowering your taxes will equate to economic prosperity. MY FRIENDS, this is simply not the case. There is no argument that current taxes are at the lowest level in history. Given that fact are you better off then you were in 2000? I can personally say no. I am by no means destitute. In fact I am in the 35% bracket. However, my total net worth is 15% lower than in 2000. People who are in a lower tax bracket are much worse off. We need to realize that we are in a huge hole secondary to the Bush policies (a fiscal conservative by the way) and that taxes will increase no matter who is in office. Let me remind you again that taxes are at the lowest rate in history and our national deficit is at the highest rate in history.

This may not seem fair to those who are in the 250K crowd. Obama realizes that the vast majority of these folks have many many means of lowering their taxes. If you poll 1000 people who are making 500K plus you will find that hardly any of those folks pay 35% on their full earnings. When Hilliary Clinton released her tax returns (after much prodding) it was found that she paid 26% on her income. Many analysts correctly said that this was higher than most in her tax bracket.


MY FRIENDS, you need to be realists and realize that taxes have to increase in order for the deficit to decrease.

 

[badasshairday]

This is going to be a dissenting opinion in a forum filled with people who make over 250K, but my goal is to edify not to antagonize. Many in this forum seem to think that lowering your taxes will equate to economic prosperity. MY FRIENDS, this is simply not the case. There is no argument that current taxes are at the lowest level in history. Given that fact are you better off then you were in 2000? I can personally say no. I am by no means destitute. In fact I am in the 35% bracket. However, my total net worth is 15% lower than in 2000. People who are in a lower tax bracket are much worse off. We need to realize that we are in a huge hole secondary to the Bush policies (a fiscal conservative by the way) and that taxes will increase no matter who is in office. Let me remind you again that taxes are at the lowest rate in history and our national deficit is at the highest rate in history.

This may not seem fair to those who are in the 250K crowd. Obama realizes that the vast majority of these folks have many many means of lowering their taxes. If you poll 1000 people who are making 500K plus you will find that hardly any of those folks pay 35% on their full earnings. When Hilliary Clinton released her tax returns (after much prodding) it was found that she paid 26% on her income. Many analysts correctly said that this was higher than most in her tax bracket.


MY FRIENDS, you need to be realists and realize that taxes have to increase in order for the deficit to decrease.

Yes. But the response is that Obama will sqaunder it on more government.

And also, I'm wondering how the freaking hell those rich folk can get away with paying so little taxes on their income?

 

[Southpaw]

See my above post about who is using the most of YOUR money as charity for screw ups.

your argument sounds a lot like "so you say the dems sucks?...but look here...the pubs suck sooo much worse!!!". It's not a real good argument.

It's a great time to get on board with the Libertarian Party.

 

[mille125]

I have a question for the forum because I am a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight:

1) If you graduate from Harvard you are unstable....but if you attend five different small colleges before graduating then you are well rounded.

2) If you have been married to the same women for 19 years while raising two beautiful daughters, all in Protestant churches, then you are a radical unpatriotic Muslim.....but if you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress in the next month, then you are a Christian.

3) If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including proper use of birth control, then you are eroding the fabric of society....but if you stauchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in your state's school system while your unwed 17 year old daugther ends up pregnant, then you are very responsible.

4) If you spend 3 years as a community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law Professor, spend 8 years as a state senator and 4 years as a US Senator in districts of 750,000 and 13 million respectively, and serve on Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works, and Veteran Affair Committees, then you dont have any real leadership experience.....but if your total resume is local sportscaster, runnerup Miss Alaska, 4 yrs on city council, 6 yrs as mayor of town of 6000, and 20 months as governor of state of 650,000 then you are qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.

5) If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up her position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community and then gave that up to raise a family, then your family values dont represent America's.....but if your nickname is "First Dude", with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didnt register to vote until age 25, and once was a member of a group that advocated secession of Alaska from the USA, then your family is extremely admirable.




Please help me understand.

 

[RabbMD]

We need to realize that we are in a huge hole secondary to the Bush policies (a fiscal conservative by the way) and that taxes will increase no matter who is in office. Let me remind you again that taxes are at the lowest rate in history and our national deficit is at the highest rate in history.

This may not seem fair to those who are in the 250K crowd. Obama realizes that the vast majority of these folks have many many means of lowering their taxes. If you poll 1000 people who are making 500K plus you will find that hardly any of those folks pay 35% on their full earnings. When Hilliary Clinton released her tax returns (after much prodding) it was found that she paid 26% on her income. Many analysts correctly said that this was higher than most in her tax bracket.


MY FRIENDS, you need to be realists and realize that taxes have to increase in order for the deficit to decrease.

1). Bush is not and never was a fiscal conservative. Clinton was more of a financial conservative than he was.

2). There have been times when the top tax bracket was lower than it already is currently. A quick wiki reveals that from 1988-1992 the top tax bracket was never above 33%. Today's 35% is higher and Obama's proposal of raising the bracket and removing the SS cap above 250K is MUCH higher.

3). Taxes may need to be rasied to pay down the deficit, but THAT IS NOT WHAT OBAMA IS DOING.... In Biden style since that apparently works let me repeat.... OBAMA IS NET CUTTING TAXES. He is just doing it in a socialist way. So if you can't do math I will explain it slowly. Obama's tax plan actually projects to lower tax revenue by $300 billion. That is what happens when you give all the free loaders a REFUNDIBLE $1000 tax credit. He is partially YET ONLY PARTIALLY paying for this by raising taxes on the rich (well those >250K). He is taking money from the "rich" not to help the country, not to pay off the deficit, but to hand out to Joe Six Pack to spend on whatever brand of big screen TV they want. Please again explain the rational of that?

 

[mille125]

Yes. But the response is that Obama will sqaunder it on more government.

And also, I'm wondering how the freaking hell those rich folk can get away with paying so little taxes on their income?

it is easy.....the vast majority of their income in not W2 income. They incorporate one of many strategies (many in this forum probably do the same).

1) Set up multiple corporations to upstream income and then utilize an Scorp or Ccorp for hundreds of tax deductions not available to the typical W2 wage earner. Of note, the first $60000 from a CCorp is taxed at 15%.

2) Make a killing on real estate and capital gains investments which again can be taxed from 0% to 15%.

3) Utilize the tax benefits of cash value life insurance, offshore accounts, FLP's, trusts, etc.

4) Collect pay in the form of shareholder distributions which are not subject to payroll taxes.

There are many others but these are the most obvious. This has been going on since the beginning of time and is not going to change under an Obama White House contrary to popular belief. So yes, increasing a tax on the wealthiest one percent is fair because many have been paying less than their share for quite some time and will continue to do so even under an Obama tax increase.

 

[mille125]

1). Bush is not and never was a fiscal conservative. Clinton was more of a financial conservative than he was.

2). There have been times when the top tax bracket was lower than it already is currently. A quick wiki reveals that from 1988-1992 the top tax bracket was never above 33%. Today's 35% is higher and Obama's proposal of raising the bracket and removing the SS cap above 250K is MUCH higher.

3). Taxes may need to be rasied to pay down the deficit, but THAT IS NOT WHAT OBAMA IS DOING.... In Biden style since that apparently works let me repeat.... OBAMA IS NET CUTTING TAXES. He is just doing it in a socialist way. So if you can't do math I will explain it slowly. Obama's tax plan actually projects to lower tax revenue by $300 billion. That is what happens when you give all the free loaders a REFUNDIBLE $1000 tax credit. He is partially YET ONLY PARTIALLY paying for this by raising taxes on the rich (well those >250K). He is taking money from the "rich" not to help the country, not to pay off the deficit, but to hand out to Joe Six Pack to spend on whatever brand of big screen TV they want. Please again explain the rational of that?

Just because one makes less than $250K that does not make them a free loader. 99% of the country falls in this category. Most are working class folks who work hard for an honest wage. What you fail to realize is that the rich are able to greatly decrease their taxable income secondary to the stategies that I listed above. These stategies are not available to the average W2 wage earner.

 

[mille125]

1). Bush is not and never was a fiscal conservative. Clinton was more of a financial conservative than he was.

2). There have been times when the top tax bracket was lower than it already is currently. A quick wiki reveals that from 1988-1992 the top tax bracket was never above 33%. Today's 35% is higher and Obama's proposal of raising the bracket and removing the SS cap above 250K is MUCH higher.

3). Taxes may need to be rasied to pay down the deficit, but THAT IS NOT WHAT OBAMA IS DOING.... In Biden style since that apparently works let me repeat.... OBAMA IS NET CUTTING TAXES. He is just doing it in a socialist way. So if you can't do math I will explain it slowly. Obama's tax plan actually projects to lower tax revenue by $300 billion. That is what happens when you give all the free loaders a REFUNDIBLE $1000 tax credit. He is partially YET ONLY PARTIALLY paying for this by raising taxes on the rich (well those >250K). He is taking money from the "rich" not to help the country, not to pay off the deficit, but to hand out to Joe Six Pack to spend on whatever brand of big screen TV they want. Please again explain the rational of that?

You are correct. Here is the tax data (source is Citizens for Tax Justice (5/2004):

Top Marginal Federal Income Tax Rate:

1920 73%
1930 25%
1940 81%
1950 91%
1960 91%
1970 71%
1980 70%
1990 28%
2000 39.6%
2008 35%
2011 (projection) 39.6%



You are correct that taxes have been lower than current. However, many do not realize that historically taxes have been much higher even in the 1980's. Obama's tax increases are not unheard of even in the near past.

 

[mille125]

1). Bush is not and never was a fiscal conservative. Clinton was more of a financial conservative than he was.

2). There have been times when the top tax bracket was lower than it already is currently. A quick wiki reveals that from 1988-1992 the top tax bracket was never above 33%. Today's 35% is higher and Obama's proposal of raising the bracket and removing the SS cap above 250K is MUCH higher.

3). Taxes may need to be rasied to pay down the deficit, but THAT IS NOT WHAT OBAMA IS DOING.... In Biden style since that apparently works let me repeat.... OBAMA IS NET CUTTING TAXES. He is just doing it in a socialist way. So if you can't do math I will explain it slowly. Obama's tax plan actually projects to lower tax revenue by $300 billion. That is what happens when you give all the free loaders a REFUNDIBLE $1000 tax credit. He is partially YET ONLY PARTIALLY paying for this by raising taxes on the rich (well those >250K). He is taking money from the "rich" not to help the country, not to pay off the deficit, but to hand out to Joe Six Pack to spend on whatever brand of big screen TV they want. Please again explain the rational of that?

I think that his actions over the last eight years prove that he is not a fiscal conservative. However, the Republican spin machine was painting quite a different picture in 2000 and 2004. Interesting enough, we also had deficits under Reagan and the first Bush.

 

[RabbMD]

MIle125.... Then why not raise the top tax bracket to 70% and increase taxes on those wealthy 250Kers by $100K per year. If 10K is good, then 100k is better. Give everyone who makes under 100K a refundable 10K tax credit. Shoot why stop there. If some wealth redistribution is good more is better right? Lets GO back to the 50s (and in actuality there were may more tax havens so people did no actually pay that then) and have a 90% tax bracket on income over 250K. Then give everyone a 25K refundable tax credit.... You have failed to explain why wealth redistribution is good for either the economy or the deficit. And if it is good, then why stop at OBama's levels if socialism is good then communism must be better right?