Thread: Obama is kicking ass!

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

The numbers that I posted weren't about unemployment, they were about job growth. Low taxes don't create jobs. High taxes don't slow job creation.

I wasn't trying to say higher taxes or lower taxes. You read it wrong. I was stating higher taxes & no jobs & bigger government is not the way to go. Maybe I should be a democrat, I would become more intelligent but have shit for brains trying to comprehend something I'm reading. Seriously though, I'm still waiting for the change I was promised and the only change I seen was worse debt and less jobs.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I dont think i could disagree with you any more then i currently do. At what point in time does the new captain take responcibilty for the ship he wrecked? Or do we continue to blame the last one until a new takes over and blames this one?

When he screws up bad: Say gets us into a big war, puts really bad choices into offices they don't remotely understand (ie Brownie), makes choices that hurt my welfare, etc. I will call him out. So far he has not done anything too bad. I can't say much else really. I bet I would feel similarly about McCain if he had won, I doubt he would have moved very far in whatever direction his relatively moderate self was going. I can't say much about Bush Sr. Either, he did not rock the boat much. Bush Jr. f'ed up real bad and I will call him out on that.

Originally Posted by HeavyG

We would be much worse off if GM would have been left to fail. Obviously nothing is too big to fail, but some corporations will bring everyone down with them. GM is one such corporation.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk

I hear this BS about too big to fail, bring others down, blah, blah, blah. Let's look at something from a capitalist standpoint here. Let's assume that say the Camaro, a GM product in case you weren't aware, has the potential to be a profitable line post GM collapse, assuming GM never gets the bailout. If this is the case then I would be my upcoming presidential vote that some other corporation, likely a car manufacturer, would at least by that line. So, the people that make that line, and the people that make the stuff that makes that line, and everyone else down the line gets a paycheck from HN instead of GM going forward. No jobs lost.

Now let's assume that the Suburban line is not going to be a profitable line post GM collapse, once again assuming they don't get bailed out. That product line will not be picked up by any other corporations. Yes, I will agree the people that make that product, and all the people down the line that support that product, will have to change jobs to stay employed, or might lose their job all together, and might have to change careers. BUT if the line has no chance of being profitable then why should the government, the taxpayers, or GM prop it up with massive stacks of cash?

Propping up an unsustainable product/service just to keep the economy from suffering in the short term is the same thought process that got us into the housing crisis.

Curious question, if you don't make enough to pay federal taxes, do they still take withholdings out of your paycheck (and thus send them back to you as a refund?)? It seems kind of pointless to do it, so I expect they don't, but never have learned how that works, and struggling to find out on google.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Dude, read my post. I said it was true, but you are misrepresenting the meaning of those numbers. Those people aren't just leeching off the system like you are ignorantly implying. Like I said, even if you remove all but basic exemptions on sustainability levels of income, about 25% of people still wouldn't earn enough to pay. Then you ignore that a lot the rest of those people exempt are senior citizens or low-income people with taxes who get enough exemptions and credits. Also, we're in a recession, so that number is going to be higher. But Bush's tax cuts INCREASED the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Credit which added more people to the nonpaying list.

Before the Bush tax cuts, and while the economy was strong, 25.2% of people paid no taxes in 2000. After the tax cuts, and in 2008, before the economy really crashed, it had rose to 36.3%. Now it's at 46% after a major recession. So thank Bush for this.

Read: Who Doesn't Pay Federal Income Taxes (Legally) - NYTimes.com

Interesting factoid from that link?
"There are 78,000 tax filers with incomes of $211,000 to $533,000 who will pay no federal income taxes this year. Even more amazingly, there are 24,000 households with incomes of $533,000 to $2.2 million with zero income tax liability, and 3,000 tax filers with incomes above $2.2 million with the same federal income tax liability as most of those with incomes barely above the poverty level."

I wasn't saying you were disagreeing. The point is the tax code needs to be redone. Everyone should pay taxes. I find it unfair for someone not paying any taxes to get a refund. It shouldn't be the wealthy's fault because they did something with their life. Everyone has a choice what to do with their life. If you can not fix the income tax then do away with it and have a national sales tax. That way everyone pays a tax and the government gets more revenue. Not sure I want them getting more revenue though, hell they can't manage the billions they already get.

I am one of them people that made a poor choice in my early years and I don't think it's anyones job to pay for my fuck up. IF Obama thinks the rich should share with the poor, then how come you don't see the mother fucker walking under over passes writing checks to the homeless?

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

Curious question, if you don't make enough to pay federal taxes, do they still take withholdings out of your paycheck (and thus send them back to you as a refund?)? It seems kind of pointless to do it, so I expect they don't, but never have learned how that works, and struggling to find out on google.

When you get a job you get to elect what type of withholding you want. The more dependents you claim the less they withhold. However, if you truly have a zero income tax liability it is doubtful that you could claim enough to have nothing withheld.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Propping up an unsustainable product/service just to keep the economy from suffering in the short term is the same thought process that got us into the housing crisis.

THIS