Is Obama done,cooked and baked?

<p>I actually got very curious of looking for how all of Obama’s OPTIMISTIC OUTLOOK would actually be paid for and/or cost.</p>

<p>Here is an article from Washington Times…showing how he is just playing the shell game</p>

<p>After spending his first two and a half years in the Senate blasting the Bush administration for its irresponsible budget policies, Sen. Barack Obama has been busy devising his own fiscal train wreck. First came the low-ball estimate for his universal health-insurance proposal, the annual cost he calculated to be between $50 billion and $65 billion. Mr. Obama said he could pay for his plan by reinstating Clinton-era income-tax rates (20 percent on capital gains and 39.6 percent on salary and dividend income) on those earning more than $250,000 a year.</p>

<p>Now Mr. Obama has offered his middle-class tax-cut plan, which will cost another $80 billion to $85 billion per year. Unspecified revenues from other sources have mysteriously materialized since Mr. Obama unveiled his health proposal in May. Now he claims he can devote much of the anticipated revenue from hiking the capital-gains and dividend tax rates for the wealthy to his middle-class tax cut. Worth noting is that today a two-parent family with two children pays no income tax on the first $42,850 of income. So, much of Mr. Obama’s “tax cut” will take the form of refundable tax credits. That means the U.S. Treasury will be writing large checks to people who already pay no income taxes.</p>

<p>With the Social Security crisis heating up in 2008 (when baby boomers first become eligible) and with the more ominous Medicare crisis intensifying in 2011 (when baby boomers begin to enroll), Mr. Obama’s plan would effectively slash the revenue from the payroll taxes that finance these programs. He is offering a refundable income tax cut of $500 per person and $1,000 per family “to offset the payroll tax that they are already paying.”</p>

<p>Because “only a third of homeowners take advantage” of the mortgage-interest tax deduction by itemizing their tax returns, Mr. Obama apparently believes that only itemizers benefit from the mortgage-interest deduction. In fact, taxpayers have two options. They can itemize their deductions or they can take the standard deduction, which is $10,700 for married couples filing jointly. People who take the standard deduction do so because it exceeds the total of their itemized deductions, including mortgage interest. His plan would allow those who take the standard deduction to also take a refundable tax credit equal to 10 percent of mortgage-interest payments. This refundable credit would total $1,300 for a $200,000 mortgage (the average sales price of existing homes is $270,000) with a 6.5 interest rate.</p>

<p>Mr. Obama’s middle-class tax proposal offers no relief for the alternative minimum tax, which threatens to cost taxpayers (most of whom are in the middle- and upper-middle-class ranges) more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Yet he clearly intends to cancel those pending tax increases, although his plan fails to provide a dime toward that end.</p>

<p>Mr. Obama’s fiscal policy doesn’t add up.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t W and the entire Congress currently proposing this for the economic stimulus package to shore up our flagging economy?</p>

<p>“”“Hillary lost both the white vote and the women vote in South Carolina.”</p>

<p>There was a heavy republican turnout in democratic primary.</p>

<p>Also, I think, factually incorrect. I don’t think South Carolina allowed crossover votes."</p>

<p>South Carolina residents can vote in one of the two primaries. Because voters don’t register by party, they can participate in either election, regardless of their party affiliation, Ms. Smith said. (Katy Smith, director of Anderson County Registration and Elections)</p>

<p>

Yes, but sending money to people who are already a drain on the economy (i.e those who don’t pay income taxes) will not help us get out of a slowdown.</p>

<p>^^Are you talking about the very rich or the very poor?</p>

<p>The very rich still pay at least 1 dollar and employ many people. You have referred to me before as not having a heart. I do, but I am also brutally honest.</p>

<p>I am pretty sure Donald Trump has paid taxes, maybe not his fair share in your eyes, but he has accts, assistants, companies, even the maid and nanny (who might qualify), show me why he doesn’t deserve it. He is not personally taking 1 more dime, than the very poor…why do you blame the rich for reaching the AMerican dream? Many of the wealthy hire people who are able to have a job (landscaping, maids, drivers, nannies, etc) because of their wealth.</p>

<p>I can go on and on, but I am positive it is a losing battle. I am not the touchy feely person. I believe every one can reach anything if they try hard enough…my favorite Gen. Colin Powell</p>

<p>BTW if Donald went under how many 1000s of jobs do you think would be impacted?</p>

<p>Donald Trump is not an example of someone reaching the American dream. He came from a family with money, just as Bill Gates did.</p>

<p>Whoa! Who in the world, besides you, said I was blaming the rich for reaching the American dream? I think you are reading way, way into my question… which actually was not meant to be tongue in cheek. </p>

<p>I don’t blame the rich for anything but I would like them to pay a fair share of taxes, at least the same percentage as the middle and upper-middle class have to pay. </p>

<p>Warren Buffet makes the case very well:</p>

<p>"<br>
Billionaire Buffett still complaining his taxes are too low
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Tuesday October 30, 2007</p>

<p>Multi-billionaire Warren Buffett has been complaining for years that his taxes are too low. Last June, he said at a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton that he was taxed at only 17.7% last year on his $46 million in income, while his secretary paid 30% of her $60,000.</p>

<p>NBC’s Tom Brokaw recently interviewed Buffett, “whose approach doesn’t make him very popular with his fellow billionaires.”</p>

<p>“The taxation system has tilted toward the rich and away from the middle class in the last 10 years,” Buffett, the nation’s third richest man, told Brokaw. Buffett said he did an informal survey of federal taxes paid by his own office staff, and the average was 32.9%, compared to his 17.7%.</p>

<p>“There wasn’t anybody in the office, from the receptionists on, that paid as low a tax rate,” Buffett stated, noting that “I have no tax planning, I don’t have an accountant, I don’t have tax shelters.”</p>

<p>“It’s not right,” one of Buffett’s receptionist’s told Brokaw.</p>

<p><a href=“http://rawstory.com/news/2007/NBC_Warren_Buffett_wants_more_taxes_1030.html[/url]”>http://rawstory.com/news/2007/NBC_Warren_Buffett_wants_more_taxes_1030.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Colin Powell did not, and he obtained the american dream.</p>

<p>As far as Buffet when I was getting my Masters we spent many hours discussing his company in econ (b/c he never split his shares). My mom who was a secretary in NJ (retired 5 yrs ago) made way more than 60k for a small company (total of 25 employees) and always got back taxes, Fed and State. Most companies allow a 401 K, now if his secretary bought into the 401K that would be why. I also don’t believe his personal secretary was pd 60K…I raise the BS flag on that. Come on the secretary for Jack Welch stated she was making in the strong 6 figures and that was 5-7 yrs ago. Executive secretaries make more than that.</p>

<p>Donald Trump did reach it, he may have started with a leg up, but he didn’t sit down and say I am done, just send me a monthly check. Part of the American Dream to me, is being successful, that includes my marriage, my family and my job. Should we penalize people for getting a college degree b/c their family could afford it. Look at Ivanka Trump, did she get her job b/c of Dad…yep…but at least she is not Paris Hilton or Nicole Ritchie burning through a trust acct.</p>

<p>As for Bill Gates, if you look up his story his beginning days were not easy b/c Mom and Dad were upset he dropped out of school. He also has said his kids will only get a sm. fund (ok 2-3 mill), but the rest goes to his philanthropic foundation</p>

<p>How about the 2 guys who just sold facebook for outlandish amts of money. Where was the business…over Mom and Dad’s garage!</p>

<p>What about the women who made widgets for crocs, she was a happy housewife and now is a millionnaire…
Mrs. Fields…should I go on…heck Martha was an executive wife, nowhere near what she is worth now</p>

<p>Let’s not forget the Erin Brockavich story…isn’t that the American Dream</p>

<p>Sorry about my rant, I am just tired about the whoa is me. We all have hard lives, it is what we do with the cards that we are dealt that makes a difference</p>

<p>But nobody here even said “Woe is me” so where is this rant really coming from? If asking rich people to pay a more fair share of taxes is considered self-pity in your eyes, then I’m afraid we will never find common ground on which to stand, talk or even wave hello. Maybe you are having a bad day? If so, I’m sorry. </p>

<p>As for the secretary, if you go to the link I posted you can see a short video of Brokaw interviewing the secretary. She looks young, not like an executive secretary, to my eyes, but I don’t know how he runs his company. He does mention that he has no accountants doing his taxes so maybe his company is very bare bones and really does pay secretaries 60K.</p>

<p>60K is a good salary in Omaha. Who died and made Buffett all knowing anyway? Some of his insurance companies have been involved in very shady dealings.</p>

<p>These are Berkshire Hathaway Companies…I am pretty sure it is not bare bones</p>

<p>BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.</p>

<hr>

<p>Acme Brick Company
International Dairy Queen, Inc.</p>

<p>Applied Underwriters
Iscar Metalworking Companies</p>

<p>Ben Bridge Jeweler
Johns Manville</p>

<p>Benjamin Moore & Co.
Jordan’s Furniture</p>

<p>Berkshire Hathaway Group
Justin Brands</p>

<p>Berkshire Hathaway Homestates Companies
Larson-Juhl</p>

<p>BoatU.S.
McLane Company</p>

<p>Borsheims Fine Jewelry
Medical Protective</p>

<p>Buffalo NEWS, Buffalo NY
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company</p>

<p>Business Wire
MiTek Inc.</p>

<p>Central States Indemnity Company
National Indemnity Company</p>

<p>Clayton Homes
Nebraska Furniture Mart</p>

<p>CORT Business Services
NetJets®</p>

<p>CTB Inc.
The Pampered Chef®</p>

<p>Fechheimer Brothers Company
Precision Steel Warehouse, Inc.</p>

<p>FlightSafety
RC Willey Home Furnishings</p>

<p>Forest River
Scott Fetzer Companies</p>

<p>Fruit of the Loom®
See’s Candies</p>

<p>Garan Incorporated
Shaw Industries</p>

<p>Gateway Underwriters Agency
Star Furniture</p>

<p>GEICO Auto Insurance
TTI, Inc.</p>

<p>General Re
United States Liability Insurance Group</p>

<p>Helzberg Diamonds
Wesco Financial Corporation</p>

<p>H.H. Brown Shoe Group
XTRA Corporation</p>

<p>HomeServices of America, a subsidiary of
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company</p>

<p>As far as tax issues you are talking about, here is a rebuttal</p>

<p>Buffett stated that he only paid 18% of his income for 2006 ($46.9 million) in total federal taxes, while his employees paid 33% of theirs despite making far less money. Others explained this difference by saying lower tax rates for dividends and capital gains are necessary to avoid punitive double taxation, since the dividend income was already taxed at the corporate level, and the capital gains were from after-tax income that was invested</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m sorry, but this is exactly the way to describe many of the Obama supporters. Rabidly supporting a candidate based on feel-good vague prospects of “change” and “hope” and “dreaming big”. Now, that obviously doesn’t describe all Obama supports. I know many of them do agree with him on issues, or support him because he’s anti-Clinton.</p>

<p>But if you’re going to attribute one candidates supports to “drinking kool aid”, there’s no one that fits BUT Obama.</p>

<p>“Others explained this difference by saying lower tax rates for dividends and capital gains are necessary to avoid punitive double taxation, since the dividend income was already taxed at the corporate level, since the dividend income was already taxed at the corporate level, and the capital gains were from after-tax income that was invested”</p>

<p>“and the capital gains were from after-tax income that was invested”</p>

<p>I have never heard that this means capital gains taxes are double taxed.</p>

<p>That is news to me. I learn something new everyday.</p>

<p>Is earned income double taxed? We have to pay income taxes on our earned income. Then we have to pay social security taxes. Then we have to pay medicare taxes. Forget double taxes. Is earned income triple taxed?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, but income from capital gains is “new income.” Shouldn’t new income still be taxed? Many (not all) of the rich get all of their income from capital gains invested from money earned generations ago, are people really saying that because that original money was once taxed the “new income” should get a pass… well for how many generations? A pass on taxing capital gains/dividends would not seem to support the idea of a common good and it seems to me that it might lead to a situation where there is a vast divide between working people and the wealthy class, which would lead to wide-spread resentment, which, if history is any guide, would lead to class warfare, etc… </p>

<p>I’m all for capitalism as I think it is the lifeblood of progress in many, many fields (science, technology, finance, etc…) but unchecked it can’t possibly create a healthy society at large. Mustn’t there be some government intervention to prevent an ugly us/them divide?</p>

<p>“When you have any proof that Hillary actually opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I would like to see it.”</p>

<p>For the record, I never said that Hillary OPPOSED the Civil Rights Act. I said she COULD NOT have passionately supported the ideals of racial equality (as she would like her AfAm audiences to believe of her early teen self) while also passionately supporting a man whose stated goal was to oppose the cause of civil rights at every turn. At the very least, she was apathetic concerning the cause of racial equality. </p>

<p>When you tell me that you’d enthusiastically throw your support behind a candidate who vows to do everything in his/her power to reverse Roe v. Wade, even though you vehemently believe in a woman’s right to choose, maybe then, I’ll give a pass on your obvious lack of intellectual integrity during this discussion.</p>

<p>The onus, rather, is on YOU to prove that she did indeed support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I’m pretty sure you know that you cannot do that, which is why you are being so stubbornly obtuse, pretending there isn’t a compelling contradiction between her avowed youthful passion for civil rights, and her passionate support for the man who vowed to fight against them.</p>

<p>"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed on July 2nd 1964… before the republican convention.</p>

<p>The republican convention occured two weeks later.</p>

<p>Goldwater received the nomination at the convention."</p>

<p>And that’s relevant to this discussion is what way?</p>

<p>“Were there any voters in Illinois, who voted for Goldwater for president, that were in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?”</p>

<p>Probably not. —At least not anyone who was felt strongly about the righteousness of the cause. People who weren’t “particularly opposed” to the Civil Rights Act might have voted for Goldwater, if they felt Goldwater was the only candidate who stood for the things that they felt were REALLY important. But his stand on civil rights would have been a deal breaker for anyone who held the ideals of the cause to be an imperative.</p>

<p>I seriously doubt most of the “rich” are old money clipping coupons. Most are business owners, bankers, lawyers, doctors and all sorts of folks who work real high stress jobs every day.</p>

<p>I don’t know about passionately, but I voted for Reagan twice and I am totally against the overturn of Roe V Wade.</p>

<p>Now I am supposed to judge how passionate Hillary was?</p>

<p>I voted for George Bush the first even though the “Willie Horton” episode made me sick. I believe in racial equality, civil rights, I’m pro-choice, I believe we should legalize drugs, gay marriage, etc.</p>

<p>I will probably vote democrat this time even though I am worried about the democratic party’s spending and tax policies. I support Edwards even though his policies are going to cost me thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars or more.</p>

<p>"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed on July 2nd 1964… before the republican convention.</p>

<p>The republican convention occured two weeks later.</p>

<p>Goldwater received the nomination at the convention."</p>

<p>And that’s relevant to this discussion is what way?"</p>

<p>I mention this and the above because there are many reasons to support a candidate and each candidate may have policies I hate. They usually do.
It doesn’t mean I support all the candidates policies when I support a candidate. </p>

<p>I don’t know why Clinton supported Goldwater. There are other reasons besides race why she would support Goldwater. I have listed them before. There is a very good chance she was not passionate about civil rights when she supported Goldwater. But to hang her for this, even if it was probable that she wasn’t passionate about civil rights in 1964, without knowing for sure, is disgusting.</p>