Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 110
  1. #41  
    Where are you guys getting that Obama supposely tax cut gave us $20 a wk? Please provide the data, here are the facts, it is a 1 time credit, bush gave us all a check for $300 (I think), and Obama's is a 1 time $400 except its through payrole which equals taxable income at the end of the year.

    When will voters realize its NOT the govt's money and they act as a legalized mafia by taking monies they DON'T earn, but TAKE from the hard working Americans. Yes, I believe taxes are necessary, but the notion of class warfare, the race card, etc is a political ploy by the elites in power to keep the masses fighting about the wrong things. We must stop thinking with the mindset we owe the govt anything. The govt cant and dosnt generate revenue except by printing, borrowing, or taking from us through taxes which buys votes and fill their campaign coffers...dems & repub.

    AP (updated 7:16 p.m. ET, Sat., Feb. 21, 2009)
    President Obama said the Treasury Department has begun directing employers to reduce the amount of taxes withheld from people's paychecks in accordance with the new law, and that in six weeks, a typical family will start taking home at least $65 more every month. (This assumes both parents work

    Obama says his signature "Making Work Pay" tax break will affect 95 percent of working families.

    The $400 credit for individuals is to be doled out through the rest of the year. Couples are slated to get up to $800. Most workers are to see about a $13 per week increase in their take-home pay. In 2010, the credit would be about $7.70 a week, if it is spread over the entire year.

    People who do not earn enough money to owe income taxes are eligible for the credit, an attempt to offset the payroll taxes they pay.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    And that's the point. Examination of past stimulus tax rebate checks of hundreds of dollars at one time once a year resulted in people either paying off credit card debt (never a bad idea) or stuffing it into savings accounts (good idea if credit card debt is paid) but NEITHER of which results in stimulating consumer spending.

    Looking in your budget at the end of the month and realizing you've got an extra $50 bucks is more likely to result in you taking the family out to Outback Steakhouse or to the movies or buy that video game.

    Is it a big feather the Administration can put in their cap to run for re-election, no, it's an effective attempt to heal the economy. Of the two, I would prefer the latter.
    no, for me it was way too small to make any difference in how I spend my money. It certainly wasn't an extra $50 and my spending habits didn't change. Most people I know are cutting back and saving. The annual change to the benefits package made more of a change than the paltry amount received from this cut.
  3. #43  
    Also, it baffles me that the media, and many voters have allowed Obama to get away with the notion of "saved and created" jobs, when there is NO formally, accurate data or way to track his new invention aimed at trying to smother the ineptness of his promises of what the 2nd stimulus would do. On principle, I was against Bush's 1st bailout and Obama's 2nd, but like many Hank Paulson frighten and fooled the heck out me, which later we learned it was all about his buddies on wall street. Then, for Obama to do the same crap with no restrictions, only to extend the giveaways to car companies, other entities totalling $$TRILLIONS was a slap in the face to taxpayers. Billions to many compaines vs 1 time $400 to folks making under $75,000, laughable.

    I wish the media would demand the administration to breakdown each of these 2 by stating XXX jobs were created, XXX jobs were saved and here is the data state by state, cty by cty, etc. Remember, there is are standard formulas used by the dept of labor to know jobs created, lost, and the index of folks who gave up on finding a job, but NEVER has ANYONE been able to gauge a job saved with any clarity.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by RoverNole View Post
    Also, it baffles me that the media, and many voters have allowed Obama to get away with the notion of "saved and created" jobs, when there is NO formally, accurate data or way to track his new invention aimed at trying to smother the ineptness of his promises of what the 2nd stimulus would do. On principle, I was against Bush's 1st bailout and Obama's 2nd, but like many Hank Paulson frighten and fooled the heck out me, which later we learned it was all about his buddies on wall street. Then, for Obama to do the same crap with no restrictions, only to extend the giveaways to car companies, other entities totalling $$TRILLIONS was a slap in the face to taxpayers. Billions to many compaines vs 1 time $400 to folks making under $75,000, laughable.

    I wish the media would demand the administration to breakdown each of these 2 by stating XXX jobs were created, XXX jobs were saved and here is the data state by state, cty by cty, etc. Remember, there is are standard formulas used by the dept of labor to know jobs created, lost, and the index of folks who gave up on finding a job, but NEVER has ANYONE been able to gauge a job saved with any clarity.
    +1
    Can I have my 20 now?
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by Finally Pre View Post
    Can you show me the positive direction form this?
    Sorry, that's all flash which I only run from trusted sites. Instead I'll provide this:

    WASHINGTON, Feb 12 (Reuters) - Sales at U.S. retailers were unexpectedly strong last month, suggesting consumers were feeling a little more comfortable to spend and improving prospects for first-quarter economic growth.

    Retail sales rose 0.5 percent as consumers stepped up spending not only on essential goods but luxury items as well, the Commerce Department said on Friday.

    Optimism over the increase was tempered by a separate report showing that consumer sentiment ebbed slightly early this month. But analysts dismissed the slip as insignificant and focused on the gain in sales as a hopeful economic sign.

    "After considerable hand-wringing about the underlying strength of retail sales in the past few months, this is a solid report. It indicates the recovery is on track," said Brian Bethune, chief U.S. financial economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts.

    Retail sales are being closely watched to determine whether consumers can sustain the economy's recovery once government stimulus and the boost from restocking by businesses wanes.

    Not only did the January sales increase come in above the 0.3 percent economists had forecast, sales data for December and November were revised upward as well. Compared to January last year, sales increased 4.7 percent.

    While the report on consumer confidence showed worries over unemployment were weighing on sentiment, the slight slip left intact a longer-term trend toward improvement.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by RoverNole View Post
    Also, it baffles me that the media, and many voters have allowed Obama to get away with the notion of "saved and created" jobs, when there is NO formally, accurate data or way to track his new invention aimed at trying to smother the ineptness of his promises of what the 2nd stimulus would do. On principle, I was against Bush's 1st bailout and Obama's 2nd, but like many Hank Paulson frighten and fooled the heck out me, which later we learned it was all about his buddies on wall street. Then, for Obama to do the same crap with no restrictions, only to extend the giveaways to car companies, other entities totalling $$TRILLIONS was a slap in the face to taxpayers. Billions to many compaines vs 1 time $400 to folks making under $75,000, laughable.

    I wish the media would demand the administration to breakdown each of these 2 by stating XXX jobs were created, XXX jobs were saved and here is the data state by state, cty by cty, etc. Remember, there is are standard formulas used by the dept of labor to know jobs created, lost, and the index of folks who gave up on finding a job, but NEVER has ANYONE been able to gauge a job saved with any clarity.
    they are just dividing the amount spent by some value and that's the number of jobs created/saved. They may be in the US or someplace else.
  7. #47  
    Review and see the different yrs of true tax cuts/hikes, they are NOT credits/giveaways like the $300 Bush gave and said go spend or the $400 by Obama for 95% of Americans. Tax cuts/hikes deal with the marginal brackets.

    Jimmy Carter (1979)
    Head of Household
    Marginal Tax Brackets
    Tax Rate Over But Not Over
    0.0% $0 $2,300
    14.0% $2,300 $4,400
    16.0% $4,400 $6,500
    18.0% $6,500 $8,700
    22.0% $8,700 $11,800
    24.0% $11,800 $15,000
    26.0% $15,000 $18,200
    31.0% $18,200 $23,500
    36.0% $23,500 $28,800
    42.0% $28,800 $34,100
    46.0% $34,100 $44,700
    54.0% $44,700 $60,600
    59.0% $60,600 $81,800
    63.0% $81,800 $108,300
    68.0% $108,300 $161,300
    70.0% $161,300 -

    Ronald Reagan (1988)
    Head of Household
    Marginal Tax Brackets
    Tax Rate Over But Not Over
    15.0% $0 $23,900
    28.0% $23,900 $61,650
    33.0% $61,650 $123,790
    28.0% $123,790 -

    G Bush 41 (1991)
    Head of Household
    Marginal Tax Brackets
    Tax Rate Over But Not Over
    15.0% $0 $27,300
    28.0% $27,300 $70,450
    31.0% $70,450 -

    Bill Clinton (1993)
    Head of Household
    Marginal Tax Brackets
    Tax Rate Over But Not Over
    15.0% $0 $29,600
    28.0% $29,600 $76,400
    31.0% $76,400 $127,500
    36.0% $127,500 $250,000
    39.6% $250,000 -

    G Bush 43 (2010) set to expire Jan 2011
    Head of Household
    Marginal Tax Brackets
    Tax Rate Over But Not Over
    10.0% $0 $11,950
    15.0% $11,950 $45,550
    25.0% $45,550 $117,650
    28.0% $117,650 $190,550
    33.0% $190,550 $373,650
    35.0% $373,650 -
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by RoverNole View Post
    Review and see the different yrs of true tax cuts/hikes, they are NOT credits/giveaways like the $300 Bush gave and said go spend or the $400 by Obama for 95% of Americans. Tax cuts/hikes deal with the marginal

    Clinton (1993)
    Head of Household
    Marginal Tax Brackets
    Tax Rate Over But Not Over
    15.0% $0 $29,600
    28.0% $29,600 $76,400
    31.0% $76,400 $127,500
    36.0% $127,500 $250,000
    39.6% $250,000 -

    G Bush 43 (2010) set to expire Jan 2011
    Head of Household
    Marginal Tax Brackets
    Tax Rate Over But Not Over
    10.0% $0 $11,950
    15.0% $11,950 $45,550
    25.0% $45,550 $117,650
    28.0% $117,650 $190,550
    33.0% $190,550 $373,650
    35.0% $373,650 -
    as a divorced professional, that is going to suck. Thanks to taxes, child support, and other deductions, I get to live on 1/3 of my salary as it is now.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Sorry, that's all flash which I only run from trusted sites. Instead I'll provide this:
    Then how about this . If not then I will post every month from Jan 07 just for you.
    A moderator that does not even have protection on a computer? Is that for real? Or is it that it shows that the most important thing today, the number of Americans without jobs has not been helped at all by the "$20.00" people should notice in the pay check?
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by Finally Pre View Post
    A moderator that does not even have protection on a computer? Is that for real?
    NoScript is protection.

    But thanks for the snarky comment.
  11. #51  
    And since he's already been mentioned once in this thread and as it's not worthy of it's own thread:

    Joe the Plumber says McCain 'was trying to use me'

    Joe the Plumber, who backed Sen. John McCain for president in 2008, is back. But this time, he trashes the Arizona senator as "no public servant" and says McCain "really screwed my life up."

    Joe, aka Samuel J.Wurzelbacher, made his comments to Pennsylvania public radio's Scott Detrow, who writes about it on his political blog.

    Joe, who was in town to back a Pennsylvania state gubernatorial hopeful, told Detrow that "McCain was trying to use me."

    "I happened to be the face of middle Americans," Wurzelbacher says. "It was a ploy.

    He adds: "I don't owe him só. He really screwed my life up, is how I look at it."

    Wurzelbacher is also withdrawing his support for Sarah Palin. Why? Because she has endorsed McCain for re-election in Arizona.
    Poor Joe.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by RoverNole View Post
    Also, it baffles me that the media, and many voters have allowed Obama to get away with the notion of "saved and created" jobs, when there is NO formally, accurate data or way to track his new invention aimed at trying to smother the ineptness of his promises of what the 2nd stimulus would do.
    Those of us who were recipients of stimulus dollars (such as public schools) had to specifically indicate what those dollars were used for, and what positions the funds would create or save. The number, for a large percentage of schools and municipalities, was huge.

    Depite political talking points to the contrary, the reality is that there is an accountability system, and you can publicly search it. It's at http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx , and you can search your own state / city / zip to find out specific info.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Those of us who were recipients of stimulus dollars (such as public schools) had to specifically indicate what those dollars were used for, and what positions the funds would create or save. The number, for a large percentage of schools and municipalities, was huge.

    Depite political talking points to the contrary, the reality is that there is an accountability system, and you can publicly search it. It's at http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx , and you can search your own state / city / zip to find out specific info.
    So you're saying, unlike the money thrown at banks and car companies, where no stipulations were made, this money by Obama has strict stipulations.
    That sounds like a responsible way of doing things.
    Just call me Berd.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    So you're saying, unlike the money thrown at banks and car companies, where no stipulations were made, this money by Obama has strict stipulations.
    That sounds like a responsible way of doing things.
    Correct. We couldn't just put money into our school budget - we have to specifically use it on projects directly tied to job saving / creation. Any undertaking on such a huge scale isn't perfect, but there was definitely accountability.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  15. #55  
    Bujin - I am very aware of that website that the white house created which is apart of the debate of inaccurate data for created or saved jobs. The fact is that money will/is running out and will have to be funded again by the feds since almost EVERY state is in the red. The stimulus funds didnt create crap, and or when that money is gone the job is gone, unless money starts growing on trees. It only patched state bugets short term and many will either be laid off, or the govt will have to raise taxes, or borrow again. The stimulus to patch state budgets was like sweeping trash under a rug, its still there and you gotta deal with it and thats were states are today, after pushing the problem down the road for 1yr


    PS: Isn't this the same website that was a no-bid contract that cost taxpayers $18 million? I am sure many here know folks who could do the job for a lot less!
  16. #56  
    I just want to reiterate my point.

    $20/paycheck is not noticeable to the average family. This poll shows that.

    Our taxes haven't been high enough for a few decades now and it has caused our government a very large deficit.

    We need to raise taxes and the prevailing wisdom that it will ruin everything and cause people immense pain is simply not very true. A small tax rate increase of this proportion would immensely help our government pay down it's debt and will set our country on the right track.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCarnley View Post
    I just want to reiterate my point.

    $20/paycheck is not noticeable to the average family. This poll shows that.

    Our taxes haven't been high enough for a few decades now and it has caused our government a very large deficit.

    We need to raise taxes and the prevailing wisdom that it will ruin everything and cause people immense pain is simply not very true. A small tax rate increase of this proportion would immensely help our government pay down it's debt and will set our country on the right track.
    The government's deficit was caused by overspending, not because we don't pay enough tax. Jeez, you're kidding right? The way to help a child that's spending too much money isn't to give it even more money to spend.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Those of us who were recipients of stimulus dollars (such as public schools) had to specifically indicate what those dollars were used for, and what positions the funds would create or save. The number, for a large percentage of schools and municipalities, was huge.

    Depite political talking points to the contrary, the reality is that there is an accountability system, and you can publicly search it. It's at Recovery.gov , and you can search your own state / city / zip to find out specific info.
    Those are tax dollars, not "stimulus dollars". I don't care how much you dress it up with words like "stimulus" or "recovery" or "new jobs money". It's all a farce. It's using our grandchildrens tax dollars for wealth redistribution and a shift from capitalism to socialism.

    Explain to me how spending money on public schools and municipalities grows the economy, other than a few contractors and administrators getting a windfall.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    The government's deficit was caused by overspending, not because we don't pay enough tax. Jeez, you're kidding right? The way to help a child that's spending too much money isn't to give it even more money to spend.
    The deficit wasn't cause by overspending. In fact our government doesn't spend as much as most countries do.

    Conservatives, starting with Reagan, decided that the best way to make the government smaller was to deny revenue to it. They even coined a phrase "Starve the Beast" for the plan. Cut taxes as much as possible and never let new ones form. This would eventually cause the government to run out of money and start cutting programs and ceasing operations.

    It didn't work very well. It worked great in the fact that our government is bankrupt and is struggling to pay its bills, but people were defiant and wouldn't let the few services the government actually does offer to suffer. They kept paying for them without any tax increases and both sides stubbornly held their ground.

    Fast forward to today and we have one of the lowest tax rates in the industrial world and our government is in huge debt. It's not sustainable any longer and something really needs to be done. (IMHO the VAT method of tax is our best option).

    People won't let the conservatives get rid of our social programs. People like them too much.

    Pretty soon taxes are going to have to go up, the sooner the political world realizes that the better.
  20. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCarnley View Post
    The deficit wasn't cause by overspending. In fact our government doesn't spend as much as most countries do.

    Conservatives, starting with Reagan, decided that the best way to make the government smaller was to deny revenue to it. They even coined a phrase "Starve the Beast" for the plan. Cut taxes as much as possible and never let new ones form. This would eventually cause the government to run out of money and start cutting programs and ceasing operations.

    It didn't work very well.
    Gee that's funny. Everything I've read indicates that cutting taxes stimulates spending, which in turn actually increases tax revenues. Reagan set us up for about 15 years for economic boom that lasted through the Clinton years.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions