The Last Election Thread

[KrazyHorse]

My point is that there has not been inconsistency (I am leaving out Richardson, because I am unaware of what he said). My feeling is that the only reason this is even an issue is due to scare tactics. Nobody who actually listened to any of the statements could be confused.

[GePap]

Given that 150,499 is the bottom of the 95th percentile of incomes in the US:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/ie1.html

It's clear that if Obama actually enacts his tax plan, his pledge that 95% of Americans will see lower taxes stands no matter which of those numbers we use.

It am always amazed at how successful Republicans have been at class warfare, using the middle's fears about the poor and their hopes of being rich (less likely to be realized under Republicans) to keep getting elected.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Barely. I was 8.

Youngens.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Finally I stand by my post. Which you sort of agreed with. My point was the number keeps changing or is getting "confusing" and that people fear the final product will be different than the $250k number. You yourself said you thought that final product would be different than the promise.

How "confusing" can it be that an individual and someone married filing jointly will have a different outcome under any tax plan?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
My point was the number keeps changing

No, it doesn't.

You're drinking the kool-aid.

I don't doubt that people are confused. But that is solely due to media stupidity combined with a deliberate attempt to confuse what was said.

[Deity Dude]

To take 1/4 of one's point and imply it is his entire point is "confusing" or purposely misleading.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap
It am always amazed at how successful Republicans have been at class warfare, using the middle's fears about the poor and their hopes of being rich (less likely to be realized under Republicans) to keep getting elected.

Given that Clinton's tax hike included brackets he'd promised in the 1992 campaign to leave alone, it's not all that amazing. How hard would it have been to just soak the rich and not give ammunition to the Limbaughs of this world on a silver platter?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
To take 1/4 of one's point and imply it is his entire point is "confusing" or purposely misleading.

I didn't imply that it was your entire "point". It is a false premise that can be debunked on its own merits.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Darius871


Given that Clinton's tax hike included brackets he'd promised in the 1992 campaign to leave alone, it's not all that amazing. How hard would it have been to just soak the rich and not give ammunition to the Limbaughs of this world on a silver platter?

Republicans were doing this before Clinton, just look at the whole "Welfare moms with Cadillacs eating steaks" **** under Reagan and Bush the Elder.

But still, genius, getting to play the $40,000 a year crowd against the $15,000 a year crowd all the while the $150,000 a year crowd makes out like bandits.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
(I am leaving out Richardson, because I am unaware of what he said).

Basically he said on tape that only people under $120K would get a tax cut, but of course that's a far cry from saying people over $120K would get a net increase. I guess you could argue that there's a good-sized range somewhere between $120K and $250K where you'd see neither a significant cut nor a significant increase, just about the same, so his statement's not all that inconsistent per se. Just incredibly boneheaded to say when you know how easily things like this get misconstrued within 24 hours.

[Boris Godunov]

Obama has consistently said that no one under $250,000 will have their taxes go up, while everyone under $200,000 will get a tax cut. As KH pointed out, Biden was not saying that $150,000 was the maximum threshhold.

As for Richardson... he's an idiot. His gaffes throughout the primaries were legion. He also doesn't have an economic policy advisory position with Obama, so if that is indeed what he said, the safe bet is that Richardson simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

[KrazyHorse]

According to Tax Policy Center (IIRC) 100-250 range are basically a wash between McCain and Obama's stated plans.

And it's not that things are "misconstrued". It's that people who know better lie about what was said. Then the media reports on the lie without calling it a lie (or at least spending much less time debunking the lie than repeating the lie). That way they're "unbiased". Please note that I'm not accusing one party of doing this while the other remains unblemished. It should be the media's job to report liars as liars. Maybe people would stop making up lies if they didn't get repeated as a possible "interpretation".

****ing media is filled with gelding stenographers. Though they've been better this election cycle.

[Boris Godunov]

http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

I did several different scenarios, and I always got a tax cut--however small--in the $150,000-$200,000 range. One was $34.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by GePap
Given that 150,499 is the bottom of the 95th percentile of incomes in the US:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/ie1.html

It's clear that if Obama actually enacts his tax plan, his pledge that 95% of Americans will see lower taxes stands no matter which of those numbers we use.

Why not just say one or the other if they are different. i.e. if it turns out to be $250k I'm sure people between $150k and $250k will feel lied to.

I am in no way a McCain supporter so don't give me this "republican drinking the Kool-Aid" BS. I merely was expressing a fear (which I think is valid) that many people below the $250k number have. Obviously if it were a proven fact that that number would never change it would be in everyone's economic self interest who earned less than $250k to vote for Obama and shift more of the tax burden to those in an income level higher than themselves. But, most people think the number will change and feel uneasy by all of the different numbers that keep getting thrown out in recent days. Also, not everybody is so shallow or one dimensional that they determine who they are going to vote for solely based on their economic self interest.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
But, most people think the number will change and feel uneasy by all of the different numbers that keep getting thrown out in recent days.

Cite?