His campaign theme should be changed to the Sounds of Silence - as in the silence of the press when he basically makes them all out to be fools.

Anguish?  Yea, I guess there is some.  There is still a lot of denial out there.  But you wont be hearing that for long - I told you so - is a lot sweeter.

Actually no.  Taxation was not that for the first 150 years of this country.  It was to provide for common services.  FDR under the new deal changed the definition, and now kids cant seem to think of anything else.

And the "tax the rich" is regressive.  So that if you make more than the imaginary level, you start losing your deductions and paying taxes on the money less than 250k.

But your last statement is very indicative.  If you are anything but a moron, the tax is going to get you in a few years.  It may seem like a lot now, but to my parents, $40k seemed like a lot 50 years ago, hell even 30 years ago!

Not double talk.  Just inexperience.  Just like Obama.

Great points all!  Thanks for posting!

Obama is just selling handouts - and they are selling very well.  When told that his tax would not increase revenues, he switched and said it was about "fairness".

It is not the money that matters, but making it "fair" by his standards.  Problem is, while many may agree today with his definition, I doubt that will be the case for long.

Hello:

The tax cuts that were implemented by President Bush were tilted heavily towards the higher incomes.  This is supported as a rational practice through the trickle down (or voodoo) economical theory.  As I understand his plans he will be rolling back the recent tax cuts to something more Clinton like (sigh...remember Bill Clinton...I wish I could have voted for him).  By spreading the wealth around what Obama will be doing is letting us keep more of what we earn (by us I mean myself and others who do not make over 250K).  As of this year there was an attempt to stimulate our economy from the bottom up...thats right the checks...  If the poor have more of the money they earn...1) they might be more willing to work 2) with more of their own money they are more free to spend, to invest in themselves. 

As for spreading the wealth...were you aware that the "red states" receive more federal handouts than un poor blue states happy to support you...because we know you wouldn't ask for it unless you ALL REALLY needed it. 

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

So really both your Dems and your Reps, please everyone this is beneeth us, we're better than this...Lord I hope we are better than this.  The older I get the more I wonder if our founding fathers were just like this or if they were more lofty.  Perhaps this is why they wanted to keep the common people out of the important decisions (the senate for example...2 people over 30 from each state or the electoral college).  

Listen:  I loved McCain 9 years ago or so on the straight talk express...loved, I am saying loved here and I really dug Obama before he became a serious cantidate...  To be a serious cantidate for president in this country you have to walk yourself through a bullshit car wash and in case you don't know...that sticks to ya.  Thomas Jefferson once said that no man will ever carry out of the Presidency the reputation that carried him into it...something close to that...it once meant that once you were there you would be shot down and slandered for up to eight years...but now after what Obama have endured...which all in all has not been THAT BAD...i guess...but I think its now possible that Obama (if he wins) has a chance to become beloved by the country or McCain a chance to regain his character.  Gosh I miss the old McCain...and Clinton...remember Slick Willy...?  sigh. 

Rev Phil

No they were not.  They were actually tilted toward the low end.

When you grow up, you will realize Clinton was just another hack that got caught lying.  And no, when your taxes go up, that is a tax increase.  Big brother has not taken over yet. 

That is the whole point. He is spreading YOUR wealth around (remember Niemoeller).  He is keeping his under lock and key.

The poor already have all the money they earn.  They do not pay taxes.  Without Obama they can still invest in themselves.

Did you factor out defense?  no?  So you really dont understand the numbers you are looking at do you?

The founding fathers were against forced confiscation.  I dont think they would like the modern politicians much at all.

Nice of you to reminiss.  But the point is that if I take your wallet, that is robbery.  If I get elected, it is called spreading the wealth.  The difference?  newspeak.

As my friend above said, that is not true. In fact, I do believe lower incomes had a slightly higher amount of taxes, percentage wise, reduced than those with higher incomes.  The fact remains that 1% of 2 million is a lot more than 5% of 20,000.  Does that mean that in my example, the cut is tilted heavily toward the 2 million?  No, it isn't.  The opposite is true.  Those who pay massively more do get more back in any tax cut, simply because they have and pay so much more.  In reality it is wrong to treat the person at 2 million this way, punishing him because he makes more.

In addition, who invests money so that banks and buisinesses have money to grow and lend?  Who spends a lot of money on things that we need people to work to make?  The rich do.  Certainly it's wrong to exclude any group from any tax cutting, and those with lower incomes need the help, but right is right and punishing someone else is the kind of injustice our country is supposed to stand against.

Perhaps you folks as I pointed out in a different post should take alook at the history of taxes since 1917.  When you do you will notice that in the last 30 years the richest amongst us have been making out quite well, if you base your observations on real actual history, the real hard numbers.  My guess is that you wont though you'll just say "oh your wrong you look at the wrong stuff moose".

Did you check who was paying?  if you did , you would notice that you are all wet.  Rates are for suckers and the middle class.  The rich dont care about rates - but when they get high, the money goes into non-producing boondoggles that do not help anyone except the rich not pay taxes. When the rates go down, then the rich pay more.  Indeed, the rich can hardly pay more now since they are paying over 95% of the taxes now.  Unlike newspeak, the world stops at 100%.

Saying the "3rd lowest" is like saying that I am the 3rd oldest - in a room full of infants.  It means nothing.  What is paid means everything, and something you are avoiding by not addressing the subject at hand.

You are talking to brick walls.  For it is apparent by both words and actions, that right now, no one cares about effects, only feelings.  Obama admitted that taxes were not to produce revenue, but to be "fair".  Mooseplow wants you to believe that the rich are skating - even though they pay well over 90 percent of the taxes.  It is not about truth or numbers, but about feelings and "fair" and distributing your money, not theirs.

Their money is not where their mouth is.  But their hands are in your pocket.

Don't tell me my money is not where my mouth is or that I have *my* hand in *your* pocket.

$170 a year where?  on welfare?  Cause you sure dont read well.  last I checked, you was you, and their was their.  their was not you.  Or is that part of the newspeak now? 

And again "their" money "their" mouth.  Google Biden and Obama's tax returns.  Google charitable giving between red and blue states. 

If YOU want to be a part of "their" jump right in.  I am sure YOU donated tens of thousands of dollars to charity too, right?  No?  Are you really "their"?

Just a little advice as well.  Dont lecture the host on their blog site. 

The point you were making (or to be fair the point I *thought* you were making) by your "Their money is not where their mouth is" comment was that the people supporting Obama were those looking for a handout and not those that pay substantial taxes. I pay substantial taxes and do *not* expect/need/desire a handout which contradicts (or at the very least provides an example of a single exception to) your implication that Obama supporters hands are in “your” pocket (your words define them as you will).

However my presence here has been a short foray into the world of blogging and frankly I've found it to be totally unsatisfactory. But before you say "fine, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out", let me make a few comments.

It's generally not in my nature to be argumentative or confrontational. I've been around the block enough times to realize that not everyone shares my particular political/religious views and again in general I don't feel any compelling obligation to try and convince folks that they need to believe like I do. On the other hand I don’t care to let what I take to be inflammatory and incorrect statements slide by without comment either. Since there’s clearly no real tolerance here for views that contradict the majority and since I have no desire to waste my breath or be the target of abuse I shall simply withdraw from the site.

You might want to take a look at my parting post Blogging? Thanks but no thanks. If I’ve aggravated you, I apologize, but you need to realize that you’ve aggravated me (and perhaps others) as well. But although I do apologize for any grief that I may have caused in my brief stint here I do not apologize for any comment that I’ve made since they have all been the truth as I see it. Deal with it as you will, it’s no skin off my back.

In any case with all of the cross posting among Stardock’s 12 forum sites you may see my name on an occasional thread scroll by but I will do my best to avoid the JU specific forums in the future. Life’s too short and I really don’t need the aggravation.