Journal nizo's Journal: Sick of hearing the lies about the Obama tax plan 24
If you make less than $250,000/year you will get a tax cut, if you make more your taxes will go up. Pretty simple huh? The Republicans can try to spin that any way they want, but seriously, that is the way his plan will work. Want more actual info, rather than a pack of lies? Try these links:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807110005
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/06/10/mccain_tax.php
Thanks for reminding people of the facts, Nizo (Score:2, Insightful)
Basically, if you are not ultra-rich or rich right now - and by that we mean you are not CURRENTLY pulling down a SALARY of more than $250,000 a year - your taxes will GO DOWN under Obama and your taxes will GO UP under Comrade McCain and the Socialist Republicans.
Comprende?
P.S.: Don't get me started about the TAX INCREASE Comrade McCain has for those not already rich for health care, that is just DISGUSTING.
Re: (Score:2)
But, but... if I vote for Obama, my taxes will go up!
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, if you are not ultra-rich or rich right now - and by that we mean you are not CURRENTLY pulling down a SALARY of more than $250,000 a year - your taxes will GO DOWN under Obama and your taxes will GO UP under Comrade McCain and the Socialist Republicans.
As usual, Will, you're a liar.
It's fine for nizo to say -- incorrectly, but I'll get to that in a moment -- that your taxes won't go up under Obama if you make less than $250K. But for you to say your taxes will go up under McCain, while down under Obama, is a lie. Yes, you will pay more in taxes for your health care, but not $5,000 more in taxes ... which is the amount of the tax credit you'll get. That's a net decrease.
Second, it's not true that everyone under $250K is safe from increased taxes under O
Re: (Score:2)
So wouldn't it be more precise for the ad to state, "Obama will raise taxes for people who make over $250,000." (A followup with, "And his plan is a failure for the following reasons...and this is what I will do" would be awesome) Omitting "some people" makes the statement a lie by omission, as the statement implies Obama's plan as it stands right now is to raise everyone's taxes. I'm not saying he won't raise taxes later, or that his plan is even tenable, but I am
Re: (Score:2)
So wouldn't it be more precise for the ad to state, "Obama will raise taxes for people who make over $250,000."
There's a difference between imprecision and lying. You said there were lies.
Omitting "some people" makes the statement a lie by omission
That's simply not true. By your logic, every time Obama mentions tax cuts for people making $100K-$250K a year, but leaves out the SS tax increase, he is "lying," unless he specifies income-tax-only (which he rarely does). Also, the claim about $250K omits (therefore, to you, "lies") whether it applies to singles or marrieds, and the fact that it's for Adjusted Gross Income after deductions and so on, and not Gross Income. The
Re: (Score:1)
Read...my...lips...No...new...taxes...
You poor poor fool.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you think you're making a point, but you're not.
Re: (Score:1)
Keep the faith [slashdot.org], baby.
Re: (Score:2)
You see, if you actually had a fact I was ignoring, you would point it out ... like I pointed out the fact that "Obama will raise taxes" is true.
More tax goodness (Score:1)
Or maybe... (Score:1)
...there's the lies you are sick of hearing, and then the lies that you prefer to hear. Bill Clinton said during his campaign for the White House that he wanted to give the middle class a tax cut, and then right after he got in office he said things were much worse than he estimated and he couldn't do it afterall. In the face of a terrible economy, huge chunks being added to our national debt to try to save it, and the additional programs and spending Obama wants to do (and has said he won't sacrifice, and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, we can certainly argue over the various points of the plans, but the blanket, "He will raise taxes!" is biased and misleading.
Speaking of misleading, I have to admit the latest ad from McCain strikes a new low indeed. Not only is he quoting Obama out of context, McCain isn't even quoting the entire sentence that he said; he is cherry picking part of the statement:
We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civil
Re: (Score:1)
Well, we can certainly argue over the various points of the plans, but the blanket, "He will raise taxes!" is biased and misleading.
I would be so bold as to say that there's an entire political half of the country that sincerely thinks that he will have to. That under his plans and their results it will be an economic certainty. I'll grant that it's certainly misleading to characterize his plan as his wanting to raise taxes for everyone. But it's only biased, and not misleading I think, to say that that's w
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought it would be awesome if all political ads:
a) could only use ONE unmodified picture of any candidate (as distributed by the candidate, with strict guidelines, only showing a headshot with no extraneous people/kittens/etc) so we can get past the "picture of candidate with devil horns" and "picture of candidate saving kittens from a burning building" type crap.
b) if you mention a candidate or his/her policies, that candidate gets a freebie rebuttal at the end of the ad.
I am guessing those two t
Re: (Score:1)
("s/and not misleading I think/and not intentionally misleading I think/" in my previous response, por favor.)
I esp. like your item b. I'd go even further on both of them:
a) What you said, plus you may not use *any* pictures of an opposing candidate. I mean really, are there full-color glossies on the ballots? No, we vote by names. People can handle names, and how candidates look gets too much emphasis anyways. <Insert obligatory Kerry-botox joke here!> ;-)
b) I say let there be free opposing candidate
From the other side... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough; I can truthfully say that even McCain would be a huge step up from GW, though lately McCain has headed more towards the Bush end of the spectrum than he used to be (particularly with his choice of VP); I miss the McCain of old, and hell I would have considered voting for that guy over Hillary. But McCain isn't the only one with a lock on pandering for votes; sadly Obama has done his fair share as well :-|
I really wish the more centrist folks would break off and form their own party; McCain coul
Re: (Score:1)
And I'm sick of people spouting of empty crap. Please cite specific policies that show McCain is a centrist. Your post has no substance.
I'll be waiting.
Yours in Christ, King of the Jews!
~RWS
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So what your saying is "No sir, I don't have facts, I am just bloviating".
You are excused.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I said, you...are...excused.
That was your dismissal from this conversation. Stop replying to me. I will not make you teen pregnant no matter how much you want it.
Ya gunt.
Re: (Score:2)
That's all very well, but with McCain's great age, a vote for McCain is probably a vote for Palin who does come across of being right of Atilla the Hun
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't Atilla pretty liberal though (i.e. everyone would be to the right of him)? :-)