US Elections - FK CL October vote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Now a Republican group is spreading a newsletter showing Obama's face on foodstamps surrounded by watermelon, ribs and a bucket of fried chicken.
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/s...a.html#Scene_1

---

And you call the article I posted desperate. The lowest common denominator of Democrats and liberals is pretty low. One only needs Google to discover that. Not to mention a look at Obama's own personal associations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Getting back to "Joe the liar", yes FL you're right, he does say he's planning on buying a business that makes $250-270-280k a year... which is just another lie on top of a lie.
He doesn't have the money to buy the business.
He can't even afford to pay the $1200 in back taxes he currently owes.
He has no plan to buy the business.
The only mention of buying the business was when he was first hired his boss said that someday he might be able to buy the business.
And finally, the business doesn't even make half the amount that "Joe" says it does.

"Joe" is nothing more than another Republican plant and liar.

---

You really don't know what his situation is or how much money he has. Maybe he has some investments he plans on selling to pay for the business. Maybe the owner is willing to sell it for less than you think. Maybe they had over-estimated what the profits are or he had confused earnings with profits. Perhaps he intends on buying the business like many people do, with credit. Maybe he has a tax lien because he's trying to build enough cash to cover a down payment on a business loan. He seems like a decent enough of a guy. I think it's pretty poor of you to slander his character simply because he has a different view and might be in a situation to be taxed more in the future. But, it's not surprising. Unions have a long history of turning against people that don't tow the party line.

This focus on Joe the plumber's credibility is a sad deflection from what the actual story is. The story is not that there is a guy who makes $250k in existence. Or, are you denying that such people exist?

Even if Joe the plumber is a plant, there are people and businesses that do make $250k that could use the money for business reasons. Obama's answer was that we need to spread the wealth around. At least, for once, he was honest about his plan being a re-distribution of wealth rather than a tax cut on the economy.

your bothing lying. Thats the only thing iv come up with after watching and listening to people debate. its that both sides are liars. Im not voting. i dont care anymore.

Without a middle person tell Truth on all things for boths sides, there is no way a person can make an honest choice based on facts known.

McCains health care is better for everyone..

No Obama's is

Liar

no your a liar

here are facts proving your a liar

your facts are lies, here are facts that prove your facts are lies Liar

your pants are on fire

im rubber your glue

Blah blah blah

communisim isnt sounding so bad right now. One dude telling everyone what to do. no left wing, no right wing just a dude with a **** ton of power.

Maybe instead of debates and press conferences we should just require the candidates to fill out a very detailed "Job Application" so it would be easier to do checks on everything they have said.
And if we find out after they have been elected that they lied on their application then it would be easier to fire them.

I was watching a show on PBS the other night that was supposed to be about the true history of both Obama and McCain, but I missed most of it due to the whole blindness incident.

Are there any non biased web sites that list only the known facts on the candidates?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by random25

Are there any non biased web sites that list only the known facts on the candidates?

---

http://factcheck.org is a nonpartisan, nonbiased source for factchecking claims made by both candidates in the debates and their ads.

http://snopes.com is a nonpartisan, nonbiased source for checking on email rumors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverx2

your bothing lying. Thats the only thing iv come up with after watching and listening to people debate. its that both sides are liars. Im not voting. i dont care anymore.

---

That is the whole point of one side running a dirty campaign and overwhelming the voters with tons of negative attack ads.
It's not to get people to come out and vote for your guy.
It's actually the opposite goal of voter surpression.
It's a tactic designed to oversaturate the average voter with so much negativity that it bleeds over in the mind of the voter to your opponent's campaign as well making the voter think everyone is doing it, they're BOTH liars, and hopefully get frustrated enough that they stay home and don't vote.

It seems to have worked in your case, even though if you look at the actual ads and what is said at the rallies by the candidates, you would see that one side is employing negativity, fearmongering, and character assassination ("palling around with terrorists") while the other side is running a campaign based on the issues, a message of hope, and speaking respectfully of his opponents.
The difference between the campaigns is black and white.
I'm sure somebody will take that wrong...
McCain's own campaign manager publicly stated that they can't run on the issues and have to make the election about Obama's character if they want to win so that's their strategy.

It's pretty clearcut if you take the time to follow both campaigns, do your due dilligence and use the internet to research the claims they both make.
While I am biased one way, and FL is biased the other way, it doesn't mean there is no truth between us.
The truth is always there for those that seek it.

both canidates should be hooked up to lie detectors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

And you call the article I posted desperate. The lowest common denominator of Democrats and liberals is pretty low. One only needs Google to discover that. Not to mention a look at Obama's own personal associations.

---

Lowest common denominator?
Pretty funny considering this is coming from official GOP sources:

http://www.agoodhost.com/flashkit/obamabucks.jpg

http://www.agoodhost.com/flashkit/waterboardobama.jpg


As for personal associations, Obama has nothing to worry about.
That smear has been so debunked that only the far rightwing wackos like Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly are still trying to pull it over the American public's eyes.

Palin on the otherhand is literally "in bed" with a secessionist group that hates America and who's founder, Joe Vogler is quoted as saying,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe Vogler, Founder of the Alaskan Independence Party

"The fires of Hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred of the American government and I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson and when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home, back to my country."

---

You can hear it in his own voice here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmYqRfp6-x8 along with Palin's association with the group and her speech to them just 7 months ago in which she tells them to "keep up the good work and God Bless you."

...and you guys frothed at the mouth for months over Michelle Obama saying she was proud of her country for the first time???
I'd say it doesn't get much more hypocritical than that...

Speaking of which...

I'm sure that in your "fair and balanced" way you'll agree that Sarah Palin is as you say, "a total d-bag", right?
I mean, that's what you called John Edwards when the National Enquirer reported that he cheated on his wife, remember?
So now that they are reporting that she cheated on her husband with his former business partner I'm sure you'll feel the same way about her even though she's a Republican, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

You really don't know what his situation is or how much money he has. Maybe he has some investments he plans on selling to pay for the business. Maybe the owner is willing to sell it for less than you think. Maybe they had over-estimated what the profits are or he had confused earnings with profits. Perhaps he intends on buying the business like many people do, with credit. Maybe he has a tax lien because he's trying to build enough cash to cover a down payment on a business loan. He seems like a decent enough of a guy.

---

Yeah, and maybe when he sneezes, gold bricks come flying out of his ass...
...or maybe the sad and much more likely truth is that he's just another liar and Republican plant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

I think it's pretty poor of you to slander his character simply because he has a different view and might be in a situation to be taxed more in the future.

---

Wrong on all counts again, FL.
My problem with him isn't his views, it's that everything he said has turned out to be a lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

Even if Joe the plumber is a plant, there are people and businesses that do make $250k that could use the money for business reasons. Obama's answer was that we need to spread the wealth around. At least, for once, he was honest about his plan being a re-distribution of wealth rather than a tax cut on the economy.

---

All tax plans are a re-distribution of the wealth.
All of the Republican tax plans since Reagan have been a re-distribution of wealth from the lower and middle class to the wealthy.
Obama's tax plan is just a re-distribution in the opposite direction, or more accurately a long overdue correction.

BTW, if I make more than a quarter million $$$ in pure profit after I minus all the expenses, employee wages, deductions, and tax loopholes then I will be more than happy to pay Obama's extra 3% taxplan which is only on the profit above the initial quarter million.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverx2

your bothing lying. Thats the only thing iv come up with after watching and listening to people debate. its that both sides are liars. Im not voting. i dont care anymore.

---

I hear you. Unfortunately, it's not enough to decide how to vote based on what any side says. It never has been in politics. Instead, you have to arm yourself with knowledge.

For example, if both sides have conflicting arguments about economics, the best thing to do is to take some time to study economics for yourself. In this case, even a light understanding reveals that Obama's plan go against even the most basic of economic principles in regard to how to create a healthy and growing economy.

It's really not difficult to understand that it is not possible for government to "create" jobs. Taxing the businesses that offer the jobs just makes those businesses less able to add new jobs or offer increased wages. It is an economic fallacy that jobs are added via government spending as Obama suggests he can do with environmental programs. That is because every dollar that is spent on his program is a dollar that has to be taken via taxes from another business. It is merely moving jobs from private efforts to a public project. In the best case scenario, it's a wash regarding jobs. But, usually, government proves less efficient than private industry because if the employees and people running a government program fail, there is no consequence to them where as everyone loses their jobs when private companies fail.

It really is not rocket science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverx2

communisim isnt sounding so bad right now. One dude telling everyone what to do. no left wing, no right wing just a dude with a **** ton of power.

---

One dude telling everyone what to do is a monarchy. Communism doesn't end up being much different except that it's a political party with no competitors allowed telling everyone what to do... and Communism is left wing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by random25

Are there any non biased web sites that list only the known facts on the candidates?

---

Not that I know of. factcheck.org is not unbiased. I can't say for snopes.

The best thing, imo, is to understand the subject in question and look at the raw data.

Also, the best source for understanding politics without bias is just to watch the process unfiltered. Watch C-SPAN. It's a lot different than watching the sound bites that news agencies pick and feed.

I honestly can't comprehend how any intelligent person could remain a Democrat after watching C-SPAN and witnessing, uncensored who is saying what. Hearing after hearing, even in a Democrat controlled congress, you will see Democrats putting their fingers in their ears when the panel experts are talking just to use their 5 minutes for a mini-commercial to constituents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

Not that I know of. factcheck.org is not unbiased.

---

Do you have any evidence to back that up?
I have yet to see anything they've published that was biased and I receive their email alerts everyday.
They've got no problem with slamming either side on a falsehood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

I honestly can't comprehend how any intelligent person could remain a Democrat after watching C-SPAN and witnessing, uncensored who is saying what. Hearing after hearing, even in a Democrat controlled congress, you will see Democrats putting their fingers in their ears when the panel experts are talking just to use their 5 minutes for a mini-commercial to constituents.

---

The political stunts the Repubs pull on C-SPAN are just as bad if not worse.
C-SPAN is political theatre at it's finest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

I hear you. Unfortunately, it's not enough to decide how to vote based on what any side says. It never has been in politics. Instead, you have to arm yourself with knowledge.

For example, if both sides have conflicting arguments about economics, the best thing to do is to take some time to study economics for yourself. In this case, even a light understanding reveals that Obama's plan go against even the most basic of economic principles in regard to how to create a healthy and growing economy.

---

i dont want to learn economics in order for someone to tell me something and have it be the truth.

Est Sularus Oth Mithas

We need a leader who isnt going to bull **** and lie. We need someone that will tell us the truth. Both sides Lie. Both sides are not worthy. Regardless of their plan you and electing someone that is blatantly lying about things that are key to our nation. With clear conscience i can have no part of it.

Right now there are to my chiefs, And not enough indians.

Quote:

---

It's really not difficult to understand that it is not possible for government to "create" jobs. Taxing the businesses that offer the jobs just makes those businesses less able to add new jobs or offer increased wages. It is an economic fallacy that jobs are added via government spending as Obama suggests he can do with environmental programs. That is because every dollar that is spent on his program is a dollar that has to be taken via taxes from another business. It is merely moving jobs from private efforts to a public project. In the best case scenario, it's a wash regarding jobs. But, usually, government proves less efficient than private industry because if the employees and people running a government program fail, there is no consequence to them where as everyone loses their jobs when private companies fail.

---

Tax buisness more then the consumer, The consumer ends up with more money to spend at the buisness. Is that not correct? How is this different then the health care issue, where everyone gets that 5000 dollar credit which is taxed on employee benefits?

Again http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/ Tells me Obama. Can anyone confirm if this site is bias? because if its neutral thats good enough for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Lowest common denominator?
Pretty funny considering this is coming from official GOP sources:

---

The only thing that is more stupid than these images is people attempting to attribute them to anything larger than one persons ideas.

There is plenty of garbage coming from liberals and Democrats to paint the entire groups with if anyone wanted to be so dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

As for personal associations, Obama has nothing to worry about.
That smear has been so debunked that only the far rightwing wackos like Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly are still trying to pull it over the American public's eyes.

---

What are you talking about, "debunked"? Obama has associated with Rezko, Ayers, Wright and Pfleger among others. Are you denying that he has? Or, did you mean to assert that those associations shouldn't mean anything to anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Palin on the otherhand is literally "in bed" with a secessionist group that hates America and who's founder, Joe Vogler is quoted as saying,

---

lol. Give me a break. Her husband was a member of the group for a while and she spoke positively at an event as a public official. To say that she is in bed with the group is a stretch of the imagination, even for you. Besides that, Vogler certainly seems like a nut, but the group isn't really about hating America. Your portrayal actually is something that can easily be debunked by visiting their site to understand what their goals and motivations are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

I'm sure that in your "fair and balanced" way you'll agree that Sarah Palin is as you say, "a total d-bag", right?

---

You're getting things mixed up. I called Edwards a d-bag for his looting of the health industry at the expense of the public. He was already a d-bag before he cheated on his dying wife. That just made him that much more diabolical.

If it is true that Palin cheated on her husband, then yes, she would be a d-bag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Wrong on all counts again, FL.
My problem with him isn't his views, it's that everything he said has turned out to be a lie.

---

That's my point, you haven't shown him to have lied about anything. He never said he made $250k and was candid about making a lot less. The only lie you seem to be referring to is based on your speculation. If you have any new information that really does show him to have lied about anything, please present it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

All tax plans are a re-distribution of the wealth.
All of the Republican tax plans since Reagan have been a re-distribution of wealth from the lower and middle class to the wealthy.
Obama's tax plan is just a re-distribution in the opposite direction, or more accurately a long overdue correction.

---

lol. Not true. Cutting taxes is not a re-distribution of wealth. Increasing taxes on one group in order to fund a literal distribution (not a tax cut) for another is re-distribution of wealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

BTW, if I make more than a quarter million $$$ in pure profit after I minus all the expenses, employee wages, deductions, and tax loopholes then I will be more than happy to pay Obama's extra 3% taxplan which is only on the profit above the initial quarter million.

---

For a company with 100 employees, that 3% could represent 3 jobs lost. Re-create that many times and on a larger scale and you have a problem. I think that most people would prefer to have a stable job than to have a $1500 check from Obama and be unemployed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Do you have any evidence to back that up?
I have yet to see anything they've published that was biased and I receive their email alerts everyday.
They've got no problem with slamming either side on a falsehood.

---

I used to look at their site from time to time as well. But, there were a few different articles that misrepresented issues. I don't have time to dig up the specific articles, etc. to show what I'm talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

What are you talking about, "debunked"? Obama has associated with Rezko, Ayers, Wright and Pfleger among others. Are you denying that he has? Or, did you mean to assert that those associations shouldn't mean anything to anyone?
...
lol. Give me a break. Her husband was a member of the group for a while and she spoke positively at an event as a public official. To say that she is in bed with the group is a stretch of the imagination, even for you. Besides that, Vogler certainly seems like a nut, but the group isn't really about hating America. Your portrayal actually is something that can easily be debunked by visiting their site to understand what their goals and motivations are.

---

LOL.
Let me get this straight... when Obama has disassociated himself and publicly repudiated on numerous occassions anything offensive that others have done or said, then it's a dangerous association or judgement issue that is supposed to affect your vote... but when Sarah Palin's own husband is a member of a secessionist group who's founder publicly stated that the fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to his hatred for America, and she openly condones and approves of that group and their mission then that's not something we should concern ourselves with?
wow... Joe the Plumber's got nothing on you...

Speaking of which...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

That's my point, you haven't shown him to have lied about anything. He never said he made $250k and was candid about making a lot less. The only lie you seem to be referring to is based on your speculation. If you have any new information that really does show him to have lied about anything, please present it.

---

Joe the Plumber... who's name isn't really Joe, it's Samuel, said he is "getting ready to buy a company that makes $250, $270, $280k a year."
First off, the company he works for doesn't make that much in profit so he lied about that.
Secondly, "Joe" owes $1,182 in back taxes and has a lien on his house so unless he has the winning lottery ticket in his pocket he's lying about being able or ready to buy a company of any kind.
"Joe" also has another judgement against him for not paying a $1,261 bill for treatment at St. Charles Mercy Hospital.
(Ironically it looks like deadbeat Joe would not only benefit more from Obama's tax plan but he'd also benefit from Obama's healthcare plan too)
"Joe" tells Senator Obama that he's concerned because under Obama's plan he will have to pay more taxes... which is a twofold lie because 1) "Joe" makes less than $50k a year which means he will get a bigger taxcut under Obama, and 2) even if "Joe" did buy the company he works for he still wouldn't make over $200k per year in profits so he would still qualify for a bigger taxcut under Obama's plan.
"Joe's" concern is a lie based on a fabricated story.
Later when questioned about not being a licensed Plumber "Joe" lies that he doesn't have a license because he doesn't need one to work for his employer.
Not only does he lie about the requirement to work, but it also appears "Joe" is working illegally.

Yes sirree, the new hero of the right, good ole "Joe the Liar" sure appears to be a paragon of virtue, truth, and character. :rolleyes:

If Joe hadn't misrepresented himself and his story from the beginning, and McCain hadn't tried to make him the centerpeice of the debate then it wouldn't even be a sidenote right now.
Instead now the whole thing looks like a desperate Hail Mary from McCain that just underscores his lack of judgement, erratic decision-making, and the same dereliction of basic vetting that brought "Hate America" Sarah to his ticket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

lol. Not true. Cutting taxes is not a re-distribution of wealth. Increasing taxes on one group in order to fund a literal distribution (not a tax cut) for another is re-distribution of wealth.

---

LOL.
Again, let me make sure I have this straight...
So when you cut taxes for the rich and raise taxes on the lower and middle class it's NOT a re-distribution of wealth... but when you raise taxes for the rich and cut taxes on the lower and middle class it IS a re-distribution of wealth?
OK, got it.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

For a company with 100 employees, that 3% could represent 3 jobs lost. Re-create that many times and on a larger scale and you have a problem. I think that most people would prefer to have a stable job than to have a $1500 check from Obama and be unemployed.

---

Wrong again.
That 3% is on the profit above a quarter million $$$ AFTER all employee wages and expenses of every kind have already been deducted.
Which if we use "Joe's" best fictional scenario of clearing $280k of pure profit in hand after all expenses and wages have been paid, then that would equate to a whopping $773 more in tax he would have to pay from that $280k wad in his pocket under Obama's plan as compared to McCain's.

If anything, the taxcuts for 95% of all small businesses, and lower and middle Americans will put more money in average consumers' pockets which in turn will increase their buying power, which increases demand, which means that businesses will need to hire more people to meet the growing demand for their products.

And to clarify your earlier question about small businesses...
According to the Internal Revenue Service, most small businesses organize in ways that allow their owners to pay taxes at personal rates rather than as corporations, which impose a second layer of taxes. Almost 95 percent of 21.5 million owners of small businesses who file as sole proprietors had receipts under $100,000 in 2007.

Another 4 million businesses organize as so-called subchapter S corporations, according to IRS data; less than 5 percent of them earn more than $200,000.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...AUIZs&refer=us

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

I used to look at their site from time to time as well. But, there were a few different articles that misrepresented issues. I don't have time to dig up the specific articles, etc. to show what I'm talking about.

---

A simple "No I don't have any evidence" would have sufficed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverx2

i dont want to learn economics in order for someone to tell me something and have it be the truth.

---

You aren't learning it to make someone tell the truth. You are because you can't and should not assume that politicians are telling the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverx2

Tax buisness more then the consumer, The consumer ends up with more money to spend at the buisness. Is that not correct? How is this different then the health care issue, where everyone gets that 5000 dollar credit which is taxed on employee benefits?

---

The $5000 credit is not taxed.

Yes. Tax cuts for the consumer generally are good for the economy as well and I have no objection to that. Note though that a tax cut is different than a distribution like Obama plans. A tax cut gives a break to people who have worked and accrued taxes. Obama's plan is to pass out checks regardless of whether or not the person worked and accrued taxes. He is funding these checks by increasing taxes for the people and corporations that provide the most jobs in our economy. Essentially, Obama is buying votes by writing checks paid from other peoples accounts.

Some value from those checks will make it back to the corporations via consumer spending. However, corporations typically just raise prices on their goods to adjust for increased taxes. So, much of the benefit of having an extra $1500 a year is nullified by having to spend that much more over the year to cover increased prices.

The bottom line is that the higher taxes are on business, the more challenging it becomes to run a business successfully, meaning fewer jobs and less investment or attempts at starting a business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

Obama's plan is to pass out checks regardless of whether or not the person worked and accrued taxes. He is funding these checks by increasing taxes for the people and corporations that provide the most jobs in our economy.

---

What part of Obama's tax plan are you referring to?
That's not mentioned anywhere in his taxplan at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

The bottom line is that the higher taxes are on business, the more challenging it becomes to run a business successfully, meaning fewer jobs and less investment or attempts at starting a business.

---

Really?
Obama is proposing to rollback the Bush taxcuts on the wealthy back to the levels they were at under Bill Clinton's Presidency which saw the longest economic expansion in history and created about as many jobs as Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. combined.
Looks like history and the facts disagree with your arguements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

However, corporations typically just raise prices on their goods to adjust for increased taxes.

---

Again it looks like you are confusing taxes with costs.
Businesses raise prices when their costs go up.
Taxes are only assessed on the profits after all the costs are deducted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

LOL.
Let me get this straight... when Obama has disassociated himself and publicly repudiated on numerous occassions anything offensive that others have done or said, then it's a dangerous association or judgement issue that is supposed to affect your vote... but when Sarah Palin's own husband is a member of a secessionist group who's founder publicly stated that the fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to his hatred for America, and she openly condones and approves of that group and their mission then that's not something we should concern ourselves with?
wow... Joe the Plumber's got nothing on you...

Speaking of which...

---

Actually, I think that it was something that should be of concern and looked into. And it was. I don't get the impression that Palin is secretly vying for Alaska to secede from the nation. I also don't think it reveals much if anything about Todd Palin that he checked Alaskan Independence on his voter registration anyway. Definitely not as significant an association as going to a guys church for 20 years, doing business with someone or getting sweet real estate deals from a criminal.

Also, her husband is not a member of the group. Check your facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

First off, the company he works for doesn't make that much in profit so he lied about that.

---

You don't know that. You haven't a clue as to how he came to think it made that much in profit. Maybe he was lied to about it himself. Maybe he misunderstood the difference between income and profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Secondly, "Joe" owes $1,182 in back taxes and has a lien on his house so unless he has the winning lottery ticket in his pocket he's lying about being able or ready to buy a company of any kind.

---

Again, you haven't a clue. You don't know what his financial options and plans are. He could have $1182 in back taxes but a $100k farm in another state that his grandparents willed to him. He could have stocks, 401k savings, etc. Your accusation is based on the flimsiest of evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

"Joe" tells Senator Obama that he's concerned because under Obama's plan he will have to pay more taxes... which is a twofold lie because 1) "Joe" makes less than $50k a year which means he will get a bigger taxcut under Obama, and 2) even if "Joe" did buy the company he works for he still wouldn't make over $200k per year in profits so he would still qualify for a bigger taxcut under Obama's plan.

---

He was saying that he would pay more taxes in the context of owning the company. So, #1 is debunked right there. Again, you haven't any idea how he came to the conclusion that it would make that amount. You are calling a man a liar based on speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Later when questioned about not being a licensed Plumber "Joe" lies that he doesn't have a license because he doesn't need one to work for his employer.
Not only does he lie about the requirement to work, but it also appears "Joe" is working illegally.

---

Again, no clue what he does or does not know about any requirements. You don't even know what the actual requirements are either. But, that's enough to call the man a liar over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

If Joe hadn't misrepresented himself and his story from the beginning, and McCain hadn't tried to make him the centerpeice of the debate then it wouldn't even be a sidenote right now.
Instead now the whole thing looks like a desperate Hail Mary from McCain that just underscores his lack of judgement, erratic decision-making, and the same dereliction of basic vetting that brought "Hate America" Sarah to his ticket.

---

Actually, your whole song and dance looks like a desperate attempt to change the subject to whether or not some random dude is telling the truth. The whole point of the story was that Obama's answer to people who make over $250k is that they need to spread the wealth around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

LOL.
Again, let me make sure I have this straight...
So when you cut taxes for the rich and raise taxes on the lower and middle class it's NOT a re-distribution of wealth... but when you raise taxes for the rich and cut taxes on the lower and middle class it IS a re-distribution of wealth?
OK, got it.
Thanks for clearing that up.

---

lol. I'm sorry. I didn't account for the possibility that you weren't aware of the facts. Yes. If that's what happened, it would have been a re-distribution of wealth. Only, that's not what really happened.

I'm sure that you'll just dismiss it as non-reliable data. But, as you can clearly see, Reagan and Bush lowered taxes for the middle class: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-20080107.pdf

Also:

Quote:

---

The Tax Foundation states that the tax cuts signed by U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, contrary to popular belief, actually made the U.S. tax code more progressive, not less. In 1980, before Reagan's tax cuts, the richest 1% paid 19.05% of all federal income taxes, and by 1988, after Reagan's tax cuts, their share had increased to 27.58%. Likewise, in 2001, before Bush's tax cuts, the richest 1% paid 33.89% of all federal income taxes, and by 2006, after Bush's tax cuts, their share had increased to 39.89%.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_...tes_in_history

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Wrong again.
That 3% is on the profit above a quarter million $$$ AFTER all employee wages and expenses of every kind have already been deducted.
Which if we use "Joe's" best fictional scenario of clearing $280k of pure profit in hand after all expenses and wages have been paid, then that would equate to a whopping $773 more in tax he would have to pay from that $280k wad in his pocket under Obama's plan as compared to McCain's.

---

Joe the plumber probably wouldn't have 100 employees. So, the situation wouldn't sound nearly as cute as you make it out to be in other cases.

Increasing or decreasing profits are what determine whether or not a company can grow or will have to down-size or increase the price of goods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

If anything, the taxcuts for 95% of all small businesses, and lower and middle Americans will put more money in average consumers' pockets which in turn will increase their buying power, which increases demand, which means that businesses will need to hire more people to meet the growing demand for their products.

---

Only, it won't matter that they "need" to hire more people if they can't afford to. What it means is that, if they "need" to hire more people to meet increased demand, they will also "need" to raise prices for consumers to account for increased taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

And to clarify your earlier question about small businesses...
According to the Internal Revenue Service, most small businesses organize in ways that allow their owners to pay taxes at personal rates rather than as corporations, which impose a second layer of taxes. Almost 95 percent of 21.5 million owners of small businesses who file as sole proprietors had receipts under $100,000 in 2007.

---

You aren't really answering my question. What quality is it that you are using to qualify a business as small? Making a certain amount in income? Number of employees?

I'm quite familiar with sole proprietorships and s-corps. A corporation has a tax id number and is treated for tax purposes like an individual separate from an actual individual. It doesn't really make an "extra layer" of taxes. It has it's own tax return, separate from anyone that works for it. A person acting as a sole proprietorship has to pay a self-employment tax which IS an additional layer of taxes to make up for the FICA tax that corporations have to pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Another 4 million businesses organize as so-called subchapter S corporations, according to IRS data; less than 5 percent of them earn more than $200,000.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...AUIZs&refer=us

---

This figure is completely meaningless toward your point since there are a myriad of other ways that businesses can organize, including the most common: c-corp. There are also zillions of LLCs and other arrangements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

A simple "No I don't have any evidence" would have sufficed.

---

No. I don't have any evidence to show you. But, I have seen it in the past. Obviously, I couldn't care less whether or not you believe me on this point. Otherwise, I would dig it up. Hopefully that is sufficient for you to understand where I'm coming from on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

What part of Obama's tax plan are you referring to?
That's not mentioned anywhere in his taxplan at all.

---

I was mistaken about this. The distribution is only for working people. But, it does not appear to be related to how much a person earns:

Quote:

---

Provide a "Making Work Pay" Tax Cut for America's Working Families: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama and Biden will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

---

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/family/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Really?
Obama is proposing to rollback the Bush taxcuts on the wealthy back to the levels they were at under Bill Clinton's Presidency which saw the longest economic expansion in history and created about as many jobs as Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. combined.
Looks like history and the facts disagree with your arguements.

---

Actually, no it doesn't. Perhaps you simply forgot that the capital gains tax was lowered under Clinton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Again it looks like you are confusing taxes with costs.
Businesses raise prices when their costs go up.
Taxes are only assessed on the profits after all the costs are deducted.

---

What did I say to make you think I was confusing taxes and costs? Perhaps you are confusing me with someone who has not been running a business for years now.

Yes. Only profits are taxed. When more of your profits are taken via taxation, something has to be done in order to maintain the same level of profit that existed before. That typically takes the form of increasing prices of goods or removing jobs that are least necessary (such as unskilled labor positions).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

One dude telling everyone what to do is a monarchy.

---

Actually, that would be a dictatorship. Most modern monarchies are democracies, with elected goverments.