Obama truth detector.

[Danno 1,228]

Last night I hear Obama say over and over that 95% of "working Americans"

we going to get a "tax cut".

How is that even possible when 30% of working Americans already don't pay any federal

taxes now.

In fact, many of them, rather than pay taxes, they actually get a refund (*called Earned income credit). It's actually a give-away than a tax refund.

So if 30% of working folks aren't even paying taxes now... How are they gonna get a Reduction in taxes?

Obama Nation, please respond.

* This Earned income tax credit give away was started by Bush senior, in another one of those

"reach across the isle" moves.

[stanmoonie 0]

Last night I hear Obama say over and over that 95% of "working Americans"

we going to get a "tax cut".

How is that even possible when 30% of working Americans already don't pay any federal

taxes now.

In fact, many of them, rather than pay taxes, they actually get a refund (*called Earned income credit). It's actually a give-away than a tax refund.

So if 30% of working folks aren't even paying taxes now... How are they gonna get a Reduction in taxes?

Obama Nation, please respond.

* This Earned income tax credit give away was started by Bush senior, in another one of those

"reach across the isle" moves.

Oh my god Danno you are doubting the messiah, how could you? Before the debate Obama stated that five years ago he had a 3 bedroom condo and could barly get by on what he was making. I went up on the internet to see if Obama posted his tax returns. Well he made a little above $240,000 for the year. Amazing he could not make it on his salary. We are in big trouble if you ask me. Lets tax everyone above 250,000 yea right!!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Yeah! Get on yo knees! He is the healer of all.

[luckytxn 2,265]

He has already said he is raising taxes. He said he is recinding the Bush tax cuts. Those tax cuts gave the middle class a tax cut also. It is being touted as fairness. Watch the buzzwords.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

He has already said he is raising taxes. He said he is recinding the Bush tax cuts. Those tax cuts gave the middle class a tax cut also. It is being touted as fairness. Watch the buzzwords.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! We dont wanna hear that.

[bhajishah 4]

Someone going to have to pay off the programs and debt.. i would help to get it of our kids..programs for whiners who dont want to help themself NOWAY

[luckytxn 2,265]

He has already said he is raising taxes. He said he is recinding the Bush tax cuts. Those tax cuts gave the middle class a tax cut also. It is being touted as fairness. Watch the buzzwords.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! We dont wanna hear that.

Mums the word.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Last night I hear Obama say over and over that 95% of "working Americans"

we going to get a "tax cut".

How is that even possible when 30% of working Americans already don't pay any federal

taxes now.

In fact, many of them, rather than pay taxes, they actually get a refund (*called Earned income credit). It's actually a give-away than a tax refund.

So if 30% of working folks aren't even paying taxes now... How are they gonna get a Reduction in taxes?

Obama Nation, please respond.

* This Earned income tax credit give away was started by Bush senior, in another one of those

"reach across the isle" moves.

But when do the liberals 'reach ocross the aisle'? It's a one way street it seems. typical.

[IAMX 3,055]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_pos..._Obama#Taxation

There's little debate about his tax policies. It's the impact that has all the questions needing answers.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publication...l.cfm?ID=411749

In several important ways, the candidates' speeches and web sites differ from the plans as we've outlined them above, and, in several cases, descriptions of proposals provided by campaign advisors strike us as implausible. Senator McCain has said repeatedly that he would repeal the individual AMT, allow businesses to expense all investments in equipment immediately, double the deduction for dependents, and give individuals the option to pay tax under a simplified alternative tax system. The campaign advisers say that the AMT will be patched but not eliminated except under the simplified alternative system, that only short-lived investments (for which expensing is not worth much) would qualify for immediate deduction, that the larger deduction for dependents would phase in slowly (and never equal twice the current-law deduction), and that the simplified alternative tax system would be revenue neutral. The last assertion is particularly questionable: few taxpayers will choose to pay an alternative tax if it does not reduce their tax bill, so an optional alternative is only revenue neutral if almost nobody elects it, which is probably not what the candidate has in mind. We estimated the cost of Senator McCain's plan as described on the stump, assuming that all the provisions are fully effective immediately and that the optional alternative tax system is similar to the one proposed by the Republican Study Committee. Under those assumptions, the revenue loss attributable to the Senator's plan increases to almost $7 trillion over the 10-year budget window.

Senator Obama says he would subject high-income taxpayers to additional taxes "in the range of 2 to 4 percentage points more in total (combined employer and employee)" starting "a decade or more from now" to help shore up Social Security. Nonetheless, his campaign advisers insist that there is no specific proposal. We estimated the cost of Senator Obama's proposals assuming that the Social Security proposal would impose a 2 percent income tax surtax on adjusted gross incomes over $250,000 and a 2 percent payroll tax paid by employers on employees' earnings above that threshold and that all of the provisions-including the higher payroll tax-are fully effective immediately. Under those assumptions, the Senator's proposals would reduce revenues by $2.6 trillion over 10 years, or about $390 billion less than the proposals as described by his campaign advisers.

Basically, they're both just saying a bunch of #######, and both cases would tear a$$ into the budget deficit.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_pos..._Obama#Taxation

There's little debate about his tax policies. It's the impact that has all the questions needing answers.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publication...l.cfm?ID=411749

In several important ways, the candidates' speeches and web sites differ from the plans as we've outlined them above, and, in several cases, descriptions of proposals provided by campaign advisors strike us as implausible. Senator McCain has said repeatedly that he would repeal the individual AMT, allow businesses to expense all investments in equipment immediately, double the deduction for dependents, and give individuals the option to pay tax under a simplified alternative tax system. The campaign advisers say that the AMT will be patched but not eliminated except under the simplified alternative system, that only short-lived investments (for which expensing is not worth much) would qualify for immediate deduction, that the larger deduction for dependents would phase in slowly (and never equal twice the current-law deduction), and that the simplified alternative tax system would be revenue neutral. The last assertion is particularly questionable: few taxpayers will choose to pay an alternative tax if it does not reduce their tax bill, so an optional alternative is only revenue neutral if almost nobody elects it, which is probably not what the candidate has in mind. We estimated the cost of Senator McCain's plan as described on the stump, assuming that all the provisions are fully effective immediately and that the optional alternative tax system is similar to the one proposed by the Republican Study Committee. Under those assumptions, the revenue loss attributable to the Senator's plan increases to almost $7 trillion over the 10-year budget window.

Senator Obama says he would subject high-income taxpayers to additional taxes "in the range of 2 to 4 percentage points more in total (combined employer and employee)" starting "a decade or more from now" to help shore up Social Security. Nonetheless, his campaign advisers insist that there is no specific proposal. We estimated the cost of Senator Obama's proposals assuming that the Social Security proposal would impose a 2 percent income tax surtax on adjusted gross incomes over $250,000 and a 2 percent payroll tax paid by employers on employees' earnings above that threshold and that all of the provisions-including the higher payroll tax-are fully effective immediately. Under those assumptions, the Senator's proposals would reduce revenues by $2.6 trillion over 10 years, or about $390 billion less than the proposals as described by his campaign advisers.

Basically, they're both just saying a bunch of #######, and both cases would tear a$$ into the budget deficit.

Obama will find a way to save us! I just know it

[IAMX 3,055]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_pos..._Obama#Taxation

There's little debate about his tax policies. It's the impact that has all the questions needing answers.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publication...l.cfm?ID=411749

In several important ways, the candidates' speeches and web sites differ from the plans as we've outlined them above, and, in several cases, descriptions of proposals provided by campaign advisors strike us as implausible. Senator McCain has said repeatedly that he would repeal the individual AMT, allow businesses to expense all investments in equipment immediately, double the deduction for dependents, and give individuals the option to pay tax under a simplified alternative tax system. The campaign advisers say that the AMT will be patched but not eliminated except under the simplified alternative system, that only short-lived investments (for which expensing is not worth much) would qualify for immediate deduction, that the larger deduction for dependents would phase in slowly (and never equal twice the current-law deduction), and that the simplified alternative tax system would be revenue neutral. The last assertion is particularly questionable: few taxpayers will choose to pay an alternative tax if it does not reduce their tax bill, so an optional alternative is only revenue neutral if almost nobody elects it, which is probably not what the candidate has in mind. We estimated the cost of Senator McCain's plan as described on the stump, assuming that all the provisions are fully effective immediately and that the optional alternative tax system is similar to the one proposed by the Republican Study Committee. Under those assumptions, the revenue loss attributable to the Senator's plan increases to almost $7 trillion over the 10-year budget window.

Senator Obama says he would subject high-income taxpayers to additional taxes "in the range of 2 to 4 percentage points more in total (combined employer and employee)" starting "a decade or more from now" to help shore up Social Security. Nonetheless, his campaign advisers insist that there is no specific proposal. We estimated the cost of Senator Obama's proposals assuming that the Social Security proposal would impose a 2 percent income tax surtax on adjusted gross incomes over $250,000 and a 2 percent payroll tax paid by employers on employees' earnings above that threshold and that all of the provisions-including the higher payroll tax-are fully effective immediately. Under those assumptions, the Senator's proposals would reduce revenues by $2.6 trillion over 10 years, or about $390 billion less than the proposals as described by his campaign advisers.

Basically, they're both just saying a bunch of #######, and both cases would tear a$$ into the budget deficit.

Obama will find a way to save us! I just know it

Wonder if you bothered to read that McCain's plan would increase the budget deficit TWOFOLD of Obama's plan.

Neither is realistic, but McCain isn't hiding the fact that he doesn't care how down the sh!tter this budget deficit gets.

It's not like he's going to be alive to have to deal with the repercussions later.

Edited October 17, 2008 by SRVT

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_pos..._Obama#Taxation

There's little debate about his tax policies. It's the impact that has all the questions needing answers.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publication...l.cfm?ID=411749

In several important ways, the candidates' speeches and web sites differ from the plans as we've outlined them above, and, in several cases, descriptions of proposals provided by campaign advisors strike us as implausible. Senator McCain has said repeatedly that he would repeal the individual AMT, allow businesses to expense all investments in equipment immediately, double the deduction for dependents, and give individuals the option to pay tax under a simplified alternative tax system. The campaign advisers say that the AMT will be patched but not eliminated except under the simplified alternative system, that only short-lived investments (for which expensing is not worth much) would qualify for immediate deduction, that the larger deduction for dependents would phase in slowly (and never equal twice the current-law deduction), and that the simplified alternative tax system would be revenue neutral. The last assertion is particularly questionable: few taxpayers will choose to pay an alternative tax if it does not reduce their tax bill, so an optional alternative is only revenue neutral if almost nobody elects it, which is probably not what the candidate has in mind. We estimated the cost of Senator McCain's plan as described on the stump, assuming that all the provisions are fully effective immediately and that the optional alternative tax system is similar to the one proposed by the Republican Study Committee. Under those assumptions, the revenue loss attributable to the Senator's plan increases to almost $7 trillion over the 10-year budget window.

Senator Obama says he would subject high-income taxpayers to additional taxes "in the range of 2 to 4 percentage points more in total (combined employer and employee)" starting "a decade or more from now" to help shore up Social Security. Nonetheless, his campaign advisers insist that there is no specific proposal. We estimated the cost of Senator Obama's proposals assuming that the Social Security proposal would impose a 2 percent income tax surtax on adjusted gross incomes over $250,000 and a 2 percent payroll tax paid by employers on employees' earnings above that threshold and that all of the provisions-including the higher payroll tax-are fully effective immediately. Under those assumptions, the Senator's proposals would reduce revenues by $2.6 trillion over 10 years, or about $390 billion less than the proposals as described by his campaign advisers.

Basically, they're both just saying a bunch of #######, and both cases would tear a$$ into the budget deficit.

Obama will find a way to save us! I just know it

Wonder if you bothered to read that McCain's plan would increase the budget deficit TWOFOLD of Obama's plan.

Neither is realistic, but McCain isn't hiding the fact that he doesn't care how down the sh!tter this budget deficit gets.

It's not like he's going to be alive to have to deal with the repercussions later.

Go deeper! Judges!

[Danno 1,228]

Barak is still running with this bold faced lie about giving 95% of working americans a tax break or relief when he knows 30% don't even pay taxes.

Someone explain how this is possible, please Obama Nation post something of value

the Palin and "Joe the plumber" fixations are kinda old already.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Barak is still running with this bold faced lie about giving 95% of working americans a tax break or relief when he knows 30% don't even pay taxes.

Someone explain how this is possible, please Obama Nation post something of value

the Palin and "Joe the plumber" fixations are kinda old already.

Cuff 'em, Danno! They can't do it.

[nowhereman 1]

Barak is still running with this bold faced lie about giving 95% of working americans a tax break or relief when he knows 30% don't even pay taxes.

Someone explain how this is possible, please Obama Nation post something of value

the Palin and "Joe the plumber" fixations are kinda old already.

Cuff 'em, Danno! They can't do it.

I think the 30% number is total garbage (just an educated guess). If you want the facts go to http://www.factcheck.org. They seem to be very unbiased & call both parties out when they lie or stretch the truth. Personally I wish they would fine each candidate every time they lied, it's really annoying that they repeat lies over & over (and uninformed Americans believe them).