http://gamingtrend.com
September 01, 2014, 10:51:44 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Hmmm. What if: Hilary = VP? Does That Sway Your Vote to McCain?  (Read 12053 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #120 on: June 09, 2008, 10:05:56 PM »

Quote from: brettmcd on June 09, 2008, 10:00:06 PM

Quote from: Brendan on June 09, 2008, 09:54:07 PM

Quote from: brettmcd on June 09, 2008, 09:43:47 PM

Sorry all the stuff Obama wants to have the government pay for isnt going to be free.  So yes there will be some tax increases to pay for it, it will just be on the 'wealthy' which we all know is a hated class of people by his party.   And it took me about 2 seconds to find that information on his website.

brettmcd, your usual cogent analysis is lacking in this response - particularly because there's a large section in Obama's plan that describes his support for PAYGO, which he's voted for three times in the senate.  Yes, the tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of the country will expire - but normal people in low and middle-income tax brackets (who actually need tax breaks) will see a larger child and dependent care tax credit, an expanded EITC, a payroll tax credit of $500, no taxes on seniors making under 50k a year, a $4,000 tax credit for college students who do 100 volunteer hours, tax credits to incent new farmers, etc.

You claimed that saying there would not be more taxes, you claimed that saying there would be more taxes is, as a bs claim.   It took me 2 seconds to find that yes there will be new taxes. on the hated 'wealthy' in this country.   So would you like to retract your statement that saying there will be more taxes is bs?

Dearest brettmcd, you know as well as I do that the tax burden on low and middle income people will be reduced under an Obama presidency, yet you insist on being a pedant.  If I were to indulge in the same sophistry, I'd point out that Obama won't be raising taxes - he just won't be signing any bills that extend the current moronic and fiscally irresponsible tax cut plan that the republicans passed previously.
Logged
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #121 on: June 09, 2008, 10:09:14 PM »

Quote from: Pyperkub on June 09, 2008, 09:48:13 PM

Quote from: brettmcd on June 09, 2008, 09:43:47 PM

Sorry all the stuff Obama wants to have the government pay for isnt going to be free.  So yes there will be some tax increases to pay for it, it will just be on the 'wealthy' which we all know is a hated class of people by his party.   And it took me about 2 seconds to find that information on his website.

Not hated, just disproportionately benefited from the Bush tax cuts.

No, not the wealthy, but rather the married and breeding. From Factcheck.org:

Quote
That's because much of the tax relief for 2003 comes in the form of a tax break for married couples -- reduction of the so-called "marriage penalty" -- and a doubling of the tax credit granted for each child under 17, to $1,000 per child. Those do nothing to benefit single taxpayers -- including unmarried workers and millions of elderly widows and widowers, for example. In fact, the Tax Policy Center calculates that nearly 13 million of those over age 65 will get no tax cut.


Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #122 on: June 09, 2008, 10:09:33 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on June 09, 2008, 10:05:24 PM

Likewise, enough with paying people to have more kids.  You want to have kids?  You should damn well be able to afford them.  No tax credits for you.  We all have a duty to support our government and our country, and it should not necessarily by contingent upon the wealthier members of society to foot an unfair percentage of that burden if it can be avoided.

I agree on this particular issue - I'd cap it after two kids, at least.

My point with the laundry list of tax credits was simply that the majority of Americans can expect to pay less in taxes with an Obama presidency, not more.  And no deficit spending.
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #123 on: June 09, 2008, 10:09:45 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on June 09, 2008, 10:05:56 PM

Quote from: brettmcd on June 09, 2008, 10:00:06 PM

Quote from: Brendan on June 09, 2008, 09:54:07 PM

Quote from: brettmcd on June 09, 2008, 09:43:47 PM

Sorry all the stuff Obama wants to have the government pay for isnt going to be free.  So yes there will be some tax increases to pay for it, it will just be on the 'wealthy' which we all know is a hated class of people by his party.   And it took me about 2 seconds to find that information on his website.

brettmcd, your usual cogent analysis is lacking in this response - particularly because there's a large section in Obama's plan that describes his support for PAYGO, which he's voted for three times in the senate.  Yes, the tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of the country will expire - but normal people in low and middle-income tax brackets (who actually need tax breaks) will see a larger child and dependent care tax credit, an expanded EITC, a payroll tax credit of $500, no taxes on seniors making under 50k a year, a $4,000 tax credit for college students who do 100 volunteer hours, tax credits to incent new farmers, etc.

You claimed that saying there would not be more taxes, you claimed that saying there would be more taxes is, as a bs claim.   It took me 2 seconds to find that yes there will be new taxes. on the hated 'wealthy' in this country.   So would you like to retract your statement that saying there will be more taxes is bs?

Dearest brettmcd, you know as well as I do that the tax burden on low and middle income people will be reduced under an Obama presidency, yet you insist on being a pedant.  If I were to indulge in the same sophistry, I'd point out that Obama won't be raising taxes - he just won't be signing any bills that extend the current moronic and fiscally irresponsible tax cut plan that the republicans passed previously.

So you will continue your lie that an Obama presidency will have no new taxes and refuse to retract your earlier claim?   Ok lie all you want then.   Just because the taxes will be increased on the 'wealthy' doesnt mean they dont exist.
Logged
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #124 on: June 09, 2008, 10:11:09 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on June 09, 2008, 10:05:56 PM

Quote from: brettmcd on June 09, 2008, 10:00:06 PM

Quote from: Brendan on June 09, 2008, 09:54:07 PM

Quote from: brettmcd on June 09, 2008, 09:43:47 PM

Sorry all the stuff Obama wants to have the government pay for isnt going to be free.  So yes there will be some tax increases to pay for it, it will just be on the 'wealthy' which we all know is a hated class of people by his party.   And it took me about 2 seconds to find that information on his website.

brettmcd, your usual cogent analysis is lacking in this response - particularly because there's a large section in Obama's plan that describes his support for PAYGO, which he's voted for three times in the senate.  Yes, the tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of the country will expire - but normal people in low and middle-income tax brackets (who actually need tax breaks) will see a larger child and dependent care tax credit, an expanded EITC, a payroll tax credit of $500, no taxes on seniors making under 50k a year, a $4,000 tax credit for college students who do 100 volunteer hours, tax credits to incent new farmers, etc.

You claimed that saying there would not be more taxes, you claimed that saying there would be more taxes is, as a bs claim.   It took me 2 seconds to find that yes there will be new taxes. on the hated 'wealthy' in this country.   So would you like to retract your statement that saying there will be more taxes is bs?

Dearest brettmcd, you know as well as I do that the tax burden on low and middle income people will be reduced under an Obama presidency, yet you insist on being a pedant.  If I were to indulge in the same sophistry, I'd point out that Obama won't be raising taxes - he just won't be signing any bills that extend the current moronic and fiscally irresponsible tax cut plan that the republicans passed previously.

Actually I think the tax plan itself was quite sound - if biased in a way that I find personally irritating.  It's the moronic and fiscally irresponsible spending that is the problem.
Logged
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #125 on: June 09, 2008, 10:13:10 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on June 09, 2008, 10:09:33 PM

Quote from: Geezer on June 09, 2008, 10:05:24 PM

Likewise, enough with paying people to have more kids.  You want to have kids?  You should damn well be able to afford them.  No tax credits for you.  We all have a duty to support our government and our country, and it should not necessarily by contingent upon the wealthier members of society to foot an unfair percentage of that burden if it can be avoided.

I agree on this particular issue - I'd cap it after two kids, at least.

My point with the laundry list of tax credits was simply that the majority of Americans can expect to pay less in taxes with an Obama presidency, not more.  And no deficit spending.

Yes, this seems to be true.  The question is whether, when more social programs are being called for, it's fair for a lesser percentage to have to see their taxes increased to pay for them.  I'm not sure of my answer to that yet...

Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #126 on: June 09, 2008, 10:15:09 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on June 09, 2008, 10:11:09 PM

Actually I think the tax plan itself was quite sound - if biased in a way that I find personally irritating.  It's the moronic and fiscally irresponsible spending that is the problem.

Agreed.  That's where PAYGO comes in.  We're at +$4 trillion dollars in debt thanks to El Presidente and his band of merry spendthrifts, so we need someone who's committed to reining it in.
Logged
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8974


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #127 on: June 09, 2008, 10:38:17 PM »

I personally cannot fathom how they could possibly tax me any more than they already do.

I mean sure, it's possible, but you'd think they'd at least buy me dinner first.

<-- no kids, no house, no plans for either.

gellar
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #128 on: June 09, 2008, 10:43:12 PM »

Quote from: gellar on June 09, 2008, 10:38:17 PM

I personally cannot fathom how they could possibly tax me any more than they already do.

In 1945, the marginal tax rate on income over 200k was 94% - and yet, we still won WWII. slywink
Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1569


View Profile
« Reply #129 on: June 09, 2008, 10:45:36 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on June 09, 2008, 10:05:24 PM

First, and I'm just going to be blunt, I'm sick of politicians pandering to the AARP folks.  There's absolutely no reason why senior citizens shouldn't be taxed just like everyone else. 

"Geezer" is sick of this????   icon_biggrin  lol!
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
Soulchilde
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5162


You and I have unfinished business


View Profile
« Reply #130 on: June 10, 2008, 02:06:09 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on May 15, 2008, 03:53:05 AM

Back to the original topic, I don't think Hillary is going to be Obama's first choice.  She (and her supporters) might try to leverage her delegates to broker a deal and Obama may be pushed into a corner on it.  But Bill Richardson makes perfect sense to be the #2 on the ticket:

He's from the southwestern USA (New Mexico), negating McCain's (Arizona) regional advantage.
He's Hispanic, shoring up one of the weakest groups for Obama and states with large Hispanic populations (including FL).
He has a LOT of experience - more than Hillary - shoring up another perceived Obama weakness. 
His term expires in 2011 and can't run again for Governor of New Mexico.
He endorsed Obama earlier than most big names (March, 2008).

It's a pretty natural fit all the way around. 


+1
Logged

Quote from: Devil on January 12, 2007, 01:14:38 AM

NiM$
Electronic Dan
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 95


View Profile
« Reply #131 on: June 10, 2008, 10:34:17 PM »

Apparently, some of the names being discussed for Obama's VP are Retired General James Jones and

Quote
Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Evan Bayh, Kathleen Sebelius, Ted Strickland, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Jim Webb, Bill Nelson, Jack Reed, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Tom Daschle, and Sam Nunn
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #132 on: June 11, 2008, 09:51:36 PM »

Here's a VP pick that'd tip me towards McCain for the hilarity factor:  Bobby Jindal can cast out demons!
Logged
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5100



View Profile
« Reply #133 on: June 11, 2008, 10:58:26 PM »

SNL Obama/Clinton split screen ad is  icon_lol

The final line by Clinton is priceless.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1569


View Profile
« Reply #134 on: June 11, 2008, 11:29:56 PM »

I like both Clinton and Richardson, but I really can't see either of them as the VP - I have my doubts whether Richardson could deliver any more Hispanic votes and Clinton doesn't really do much for the ticket.  I think Webb or Warner should be the pick looking at the Electoral college math, but I could also see the retired military option as a way to combat McCain's advantages (and probable attacks) on that front.
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #135 on: June 12, 2008, 12:13:36 AM »

Quote from: Pyperkub on June 11, 2008, 11:29:56 PM

Clinton doesn't really do much for the ticket.
Wha? She's strongest in exactly those areas in which Obama is weakest.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #136 on: June 12, 2008, 12:23:04 AM »

Quote from: Electronic Dan on June 10, 2008, 10:34:17 PM

Apparently, some of the names being discussed for Obama's VP are Retired General James Jones and

Quote
Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Evan Bayh, Kathleen Sebelius, Ted Strickland, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Jim Webb, Bill Nelson, Jack Reed, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Tom Daschle, and Sam Nunn

I like Jim Webb.  I just finished reading his book earlier this week.  I'm not sure he would add much to the ticket though.  Obama is not going to win Virginia anyway and I can't see Webb pulling many hispanics or women. 
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 12:26:02 AM by denoginizer » Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #137 on: June 12, 2008, 12:49:30 AM »

Quote from: Pyperkub on June 09, 2008, 09:48:13 PM

Quote from: brettmcd on June 09, 2008, 09:43:47 PM

Sorry all the stuff Obama wants to have the government pay for isnt going to be free.  So yes there will be some tax increases to pay for it, it will just be on the 'wealthy' which we all know is a hated class of people by his party.   And it took me about 2 seconds to find that information on his website.

Not hated, just disproportionately benefited from the Bush tax cuts.

I am no where NEAR wealthy, and I benefited from the tax cuts.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #138 on: June 12, 2008, 12:56:18 AM »

Quote from: Geezer on June 09, 2008, 10:11:09 PM

Quote from: Brendan on June 09, 2008, 10:05:56 PM

Quote from: brettmcd on June 09, 2008, 10:00:06 PM

Quote from: Brendan on June 09, 2008, 09:54:07 PM

Quote from: brettmcd on June 09, 2008, 09:43:47 PM

Sorry all the stuff Obama wants to have the government pay for isnt going to be free.  So yes there will be some tax increases to pay for it, it will just be on the 'wealthy' which we all know is a hated class of people by his party.   And it took me about 2 seconds to find that information on his website.

brettmcd, your usual cogent analysis is lacking in this response - particularly because there's a large section in Obama's plan that describes his support for PAYGO, which he's voted for three times in the senate.  Yes, the tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of the country will expire - but normal people in low and middle-income tax brackets (who actually need tax breaks) will see a larger child and dependent care tax credit, an expanded EITC, a payroll tax credit of $500, no taxes on seniors making under 50k a year, a $4,000 tax credit for college students who do 100 volunteer hours, tax credits to incent new farmers, etc.

You claimed that saying there would not be more taxes, you claimed that saying there would be more taxes is, as a bs claim.   It took me 2 seconds to find that yes there will be new taxes. on the hated 'wealthy' in this country.   So would you like to retract your statement that saying there will be more taxes is bs?

Dearest brettmcd, you know as well as I do that the tax burden on low and middle income people will be reduced under an Obama presidency, yet you insist on being a pedant.  If I were to indulge in the same sophistry, I'd point out that Obama won't be raising taxes - he just won't be signing any bills that extend the current moronic and fiscally irresponsible tax cut plan that the republicans passed previously.

Actually I think the tax plan itself was quite sound - if biased in a way that I find personally irritating.  It's the moronic and fiscally irresponsible spending that is the problem.

Spending has been out of control.     It was out of control during 40 years of democrat control as well... and there was a brief period during Newt's tenure where it was finally under control.   I miss Newt in congress.
Logged
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3389



View Profile WWW
« Reply #139 on: June 12, 2008, 02:54:37 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 12, 2008, 12:56:18 AM

Quote from: Geezer on June 09, 2008, 10:11:09 PM

Quote from: Brendan on June 09, 2008, 10:05:56 PM

Quote from: brettmcd on June 09, 2008, 10:00:06 PM

Quote from: Brendan on June 09, 2008, 09:54:07 PM

Quote from: brettmcd on June 09, 2008, 09:43:47 PM

Sorry all the stuff Obama wants to have the government pay for isnt going to be free.  So yes there will be some tax increases to pay for it, it will just be on the 'wealthy' which we all know is a hated class of people by his party.   And it took me about 2 seconds to find that information on his website.

brettmcd, your usual cogent analysis is lacking in this response - particularly because there's a large section in Obama's plan that describes his support for PAYGO, which he's voted for three times in the senate.  Yes, the tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of the country will expire - but normal people in low and middle-income tax brackets (who actually need tax breaks) will see a larger child and dependent care tax credit, an expanded EITC, a payroll tax credit of $500, no taxes on seniors making under 50k a year, a $4,000 tax credit for college students who do 100 volunteer hours, tax credits to incent new farmers, etc.

You claimed that saying there would not be more taxes, you claimed that saying there would be more taxes is, as a bs claim.   It took me 2 seconds to find that yes there will be new taxes. on the hated 'wealthy' in this country.   So would you like to retract your statement that saying there will be more taxes is bs?

Dearest brettmcd, you know as well as I do that the tax burden on low and middle income people will be reduced under an Obama presidency, yet you insist on being a pedant.  If I were to indulge in the same sophistry, I'd point out that Obama won't be raising taxes - he just won't be signing any bills that extend the current moronic and fiscally irresponsible tax cut plan that the republicans passed previously.

Actually I think the tax plan itself was quite sound - if biased in a way that I find personally irritating.  It's the moronic and fiscally irresponsible spending that is the problem.

Spending has been out of control.     It was out of control during 40 years of democrat control as well... and there was a brief period during Newt's tenure where it was finally under control.   I miss Newt in congress.



Ya think? I especially like the tiny blip for WW2.



Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #140 on: June 12, 2008, 03:23:46 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 12, 2008, 12:49:30 AM

Quote from: Pyperkub on June 09, 2008, 09:48:13 PM

Quote from: brettmcd on June 09, 2008, 09:43:47 PM

Sorry all the stuff Obama wants to have the government pay for isnt going to be free.  So yes there will be some tax increases to pay for it, it will just be on the 'wealthy' which we all know is a hated class of people by his party.   And it took me about 2 seconds to find that information on his website.

Not hated, just disproportionately benefited from the Bush tax cuts.

I am no where NEAR wealthy, and I benefited from the tax cuts.

You do see the word "disproportionately," right?
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #141 on: June 12, 2008, 03:44:39 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 12, 2008, 12:56:18 AM

Spending has been out of control.     It was out of control during 40 years of democrat control as well... and there was a brief period during Newt's tenure where it was finally under control.   I miss Newt in congress.

While Newt was partially responsible for spending reductions post-Contract with America, he certainly needed President Clinton's support.  Clinton deserves the credit for realizing that deficits do matter - Robert Rubin, Leon Panetta, Lloyd Bentsen, Alice Rivlin, and the rest of his economic team, were deficit hawks.  Consequently, the Democrats passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation act of 1993 without a single vote from a Republican, and that bill, passed by the Democrats, is what the non-partisan CBO gives primary credit to.

It's laughable to suggest that the budget would've been under control without that bill.

Quote
Despite claims to the contrary, CBO data show that the combined fiscal effect of the laws enacted by the 104th and 105th Republican Congresses is to add $11,000,000,000 more to the deficit than it cut in Fiscal Year 1998.

Clearly the CBO numbers confirm that the major credit for creating the 1998 surplus must go to actions of the 103rd Democratic Congress, which not only produced real net savings of $141 billion, but created the conditions necessary to adopt pro-growth monetary policies that have been very successful. The centerpiece of this effort, the deficit reduction bill passed in 1993, was described as follows by Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan: `There's no question that the impact of bringing the deficit down [through the 1993 budget bill] set in place a series of events--a virtuous cycle, if I may put it that way--which has led us to where we are.' (In testimony before the House Budget Committee, March 4, 1998.)

The facts show that the 1998 budget is balanced despite Republican legislative efforts, not because of them.

Where's Blackadar's weak ass humpy-bumpy picture when you need it?

edit: added "t" to Lloyd Bentsen's last name.  Oops.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 03:49:36 AM by Brendan » Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.134 seconds with 66 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.026s, 2q)