WWTBAM Bored

Back in July, Obama made the claim that he would not raise taxes for people making less than $250K.

Then, in October, he lowered this number to $200K.

Then, Biden made the statement that people making less than $150K...

Today, I heard Bill Richardson lower this figure to $120K...

Nothing like a game of economic limbo to sweeten that Kool Aid.

Wrong again, Maude.

wbtravis007 wrote:Wrong again, Maude.

So, we're into name-calling now? What part of my statement is wrong, Herbert?

And, by the way, have you ever heard BHO mention anything about the Bush tax cuts that will expire in 2010?
If he does not renew them, everyone will get a tax increase bringing the levels back to where they were in
the Clinton years.

What flavor Kool Aid do you prefer?

"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those," Richardson said in the interview, according to a clip posted on YouTube. "

" (quote from Fox website)There's no indication that Obama has changed his tax policy, which states that anyone making under $200,000 would get a tax cut under his administration, and nobody making under $250,000 would be hit with a tax increase."

So, here's the question--what's a tax break versus a tax cut? Between $250,000 and $200,000 seems to be a no man's land of "no tax increase", but now no tax cut. Biden said $150,000 and below for a tax cut. Richardson said $120,000. Is there another no man's land between $150,000 and $120,000? Are those areas going to be taxed at 95 percent? (that was a joke)

I can't play youtube here at work. Someone 'splain to me.

Sir_Galahad wrote:What flavor Kool Aid do you prefer?

It's a loaded question, wbtravis. You do not have to answer it.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:What flavor Kool Aid do you prefer?

It's a loaded question, wbtravis. You do not have to answer it.

<LOL> That's the second funniest thing you have ever posted, Nelly.

Sir_Galahad wrote:Back in July, Obama made the claim that he would not raise taxes for people making less than $250K.

Then, in October, he lowered this number to $200K.

Then, Biden made the statement that people making less than $150K...

Today, I heard Bill Richardson lower this figure to $120K...

Nothing like a game of economic limbo to sweeten that Kool Aid.

When did Richardson say that? A year ago?

wbtravis007 wrote:Wrong again, Maude.

Ok, what part of the $250,00 then $200,000 then Biden's $150,000 comments did I not understand?



And one more thing, did we bet $25 or .25?

Bob Juch wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:Back in July, Obama made the claim that he would not raise taxes for people making less than $250K.

Then, in October, he lowered this number to $200K.

Then, Biden made the statement that people making less than $150K...

Today, I heard Bill Richardson lower this figure to $120K...

Nothing like a game of economic limbo to sweeten that Kool Aid.

When did Richardson say that? A year ago?

http://www.850koa.com/cc-common/mainhea ... le=4508532

According to KOA AM, this morning.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:Back in July, Obama made the claim that he would not raise taxes for people making less than $250K.

Then, in October, he lowered this number to $200K.

Then, Biden made the statement that people making less than $150K...

Today, I heard Bill Richardson lower this figure to $120K...

Nothing like a game of economic limbo to sweeten that Kool Aid.

When did Richardson say that? A year ago?

http://www.850koa.com/cc-common/mainhea ... le=4508532

According to KOA AM, this morning.

He said there'd be a tax cut for those making under $120,000. He didn't say only for them. In the full interview that is clear.

One thing has not been made clear. I keep hearing Obama say that tax cuts will be coming to middle class families. That word appears in virtually all statements from his mouth. I interpret that to mean that the greater portion of any prospective benefits will arrive through credits for dependent children and perhaps the education thereof. I anticipate that, as usual, and even though my income is far, far below any thresholds discussed, I can look forward to no tax cut whatsoever and may well face an increase, since I am no longer harboring minor children. Obama's minions are less careful about saying "families" every time.

Sir_Galahad wrote:

wbtravis007 wrote:Wrong again, Maude.

So, we're into name-calling now? What part of my statement is wrong, Herbert?

And, by the way, have you ever heard BHO mention anything about the Bush tax cuts that will expire in 2010?
If he does not renew them, everyone will get a tax increase bringing the levels back to where they were in
the Clinton years.

What flavor Kool Aid do you prefer?

Lighten up, Francis.

kusch wrote:

wbtravis007 wrote:Wrong again, Maude.

Ok, what part of the $250,00 then $200,000 then Biden's $150,000 comments did I not understand?



And one more thing, did we bet $25 or .25?

ICM! Want out?

No tax increase for those under $250,000. (Over $250,00 taxed at Clinton rates.) Tax cuts for those under $200,000. Those between $200,000 and $250,000 taxed about the same as now.

What Biden said was not inconsistent with that. I haven't heard Richardson's comment or seen it quoted.

[Edit: Yikes! I said under instead of over. I changed it.]

Bob Juch wrote:He said there'd be a tax cut for those making under $120,000. He didn't say only for them. In the full interview that is clear.

Are you a politician, Bob?

wbtravis007 wrote:

kusch wrote:

wbtravis007 wrote:Wrong again, Maude.

Ok, what part of the $250,00 then $200,000 then Biden's $150,000 comments did I not understand?



And one more thing, did we bet $25 or .25?

ICM! Want out?

No tax increase for those over $250,000. (Over $250,00 taxed at Clinton rates.) Tax cuts for those under $200,000. Those between $200,000 and $250,000 taxed about the same as now.

What Biden said was not inconsistent with that. I haven't heard Richardson's comment or seen it quoted.

They are all lying. Unless they extend the Bush tax cuts (which obama voted against every time it came up in the Senate), everyone will get a tax increase. I remember how much my tax bill went down from 2000 to 2001. I do not want them to go back to Clinton levels, and I don't make anywhere near any of those thresholds that obama and his cronies keep mentioning.

silvercamaro wrote:One thing has not been made clear. I keep hearing Obama say that tax cuts will be coming to middle class families. That word appears in virtually all statements from his mouth. I interpret that to mean that the greater portion of any prospective benefits will arrive through credits for dependent children and perhaps the education thereof. I anticipate that, as usual, and even though my income is far, far below any thresholds discussed, I can look forward to no tax cut whatsoever and may well face an increase, since I am no longer harboring minor children. Obama's minions are less careful about saying "families" every time.

I'm just making a guess here, silver-c, because I'm not well informed about the specifics of his tax plan. I know that there is supposed to be some site where you can put in various information that would then give you an estimate of your tax savings, if any, under the Obama plan.

I haven't bothered to do that, and can't provide a link.

I think that you've astutely noticed that he always mentions "families." So, here's the wild guess (meaning I'm too lazy to try to get to the bottom of it): The $250,000 (and $2000,00) applies to a joint return.

That would explain some of these other numbers. (I still haven't heard or seen Richarson's comments.)

I also would guess that you're probably right that credits for depenents are involved in the calculations.

I prefer to guess, since, as I mentioned, I'm kind of lazy.

Why are we arguing over stuff that will not happen in the form it has currently been planned to happen?

The current fiscal situation of the US government will make it impossible for either McCain or Obama to do hardly any of what they have promised.

Obama himself is starting to try and mute the "hope" that his supporters have been showing by trying to downplay what he'll be able to accomplish when he's elected.

danielh41 wrote:

wbtravis007 wrote:

kusch wrote: Ok, what part of the $250,00 then $200,000 then Biden's $150,000 comments did I not understand?



And one more thing, did we bet $25 or .25?

ICM! Want out?

No tax increase for those over $250,000. (Over $250,00 taxed at Clinton rates.) Tax cuts for those under $200,000. Those between $200,000 and $250,000 taxed about the same as now.

What Biden said was not inconsistent with that. I haven't heard Richardson's comment or seen it quoted.

They are all lying. Unless they extend the Bush tax cuts (which obama voted against every time it came up in the Senate), everyone will get a tax increase.

I think that most people woulld agree that people should have their facts straight before accusing someone of lying.

On this issue, you are either ignorant or lying.

wbtravis007 wrote:Wrong again, Maude.

leave sir g alone!!!

he has no dog in this fight!!!

cant ya tell??

silvercamaro wrote:One thing has not been made clear. I keep hearing Obama say that tax cuts will be coming to middle class families. That word appears in virtually all statements from his mouth. I interpret that to mean that the greater portion of any prospective benefits will arrive through credits for dependent children and perhaps the education thereof. I anticipate that, as usual, and even though my income is far, far below any thresholds discussed, I can look forward to no tax cut whatsoever and may well face an increase, since I am no longer harboring minor children. Obama's minions are less careful about saying "families" every time.

No need to guess, shinycar. You can see for yourself. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:
No need to guess, shinycar. You can see for yourself. --Bob

This told me nothing of value. I plugged in approximate truthful data and looked at the tax total returned. I went back and added 3 dependents, and "saving for retirement," and the number on the Obama side came back exactly the same. I doubt sincerely if that is possible under anybody's tax plan. In other words, these "handy, useful" tools are election crap that promise much but have no force of accuracy or law to deliver anything. When people who believe they will be getting a tax cut of X dollars don't get it, their complaints will be answered with "Oh, but that was just an approximation," or "But that was based on an average for taxpayers in your income bracket," or "Tough bananas."

My vote will not be based on imaginary "tax savings."