• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

250K no longer, now its 87K

TurtleDude

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
For weeks Team Obama was claiming that the Romney tax plan would result in MILLIONAIRES getting a 250K tax cut (which many of us who are know is crap, most millionaires are not paying 250K since millionaire means a million in assets but even those of us making > 1 million a year are often paying 250-300K in income taxes). The Obama campaign is trying is basing this on those with huge salary incomes.

NOW the most recent advertisement claims an EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND dollar cut.

I wonder what caused this massive change
 
What? Link?
 
zimmer said:
Assume it's true... how about a reply?
Click to expand...

Before that happens - would it be too much to ask to show us this is true?

Perhaps you or Turtle could post for us all the supposed original claims they insist were made by the Obama campaign and then post the new claims they insist are being made by the Obama campaign so we can see that this thread is based on actual fact and not just some political rant.

Normally when claims or allegations are made, there is some sort of verifiable evidence to show that there is substance to them. So how about you provide that substance?
 
zimmer said:
Assume it's true... how about a reply?
Click to expand...

I was watching TV last night and that 87K claim was on a team Obama commercial, saw it again this morning on CHannel 12, (CBS) at 7.46 am EDST. The 250K one I have't seen for several days.
 
TurtleDude said:
I was watching TV last night and that 87K claim was on a team Obama commercial, saw it again this morning on CHannel 12, (CBS) at 7.46 am EDST. The 250K one I have't seen for several days.
Click to expand...

Without the actual details, facts and figures from both sets of claims - such a personal anecdote is hardly sufficient for any real discussion or debate.
 
TurtleDude said:
its hilarious that Obama Inc hard core supporters pretend not to have seen the ads

here is the reference to the 250K one

Obama’s new campaign ad on dueling budget plans - The Washington Post

The other one I just saw for the first time yesterday, cannot find it on youtube yet
Click to expand...

How can one assume that everyone here has seen what you claim you have seen and then have come away with seeing it the same way that you do?

I find no hilarity is merely asking somebody starting a thread to provide factual verification for the premise of the thread.
 
If the ad exists it's probably in response to one of those "independent" studies that Romney cites to claim that his numbers add up. In order to make it work, Prof. Feldstein had to assume that deductions would be eliminated for individuals making $87k or families earning $100k.

How can a Romney supporter criticize Obama for relying on Romney's own expert? Can someone explain that to me?
 
Just to be honest, I don't really see any ads because I don't watch tv. I seen CBS news 12 Cincinnati on the tv at work three Romney ads in row though. Nearly all ads were bout how Obama is going to rape your grandma and **** on your sister. Then the next commercial break Obamas ads said all the things that the others said about Romney but also that Romney was a robot space man. Pretty nuts.
 
JohnWOlin said:
Just to be honest, I don't really see any ads because I don't watch tv. I seen CBS news 12 Cincinnati on the tv at work three Romney ads in row though. Nearly all ads were bout how Obama is going to rape your grandma and **** on your sister. Then the next commercial break Obamas ads said all the things that the others said about Romney but also that Romney was a robot space man. Pretty nuts.
Click to expand...

90% of the time when I watch TV it's something I've DVR'd, so I can skip commercials. Even so, I'm to the point where I mentally block out campaign ads if I'm watching live TV.
 
AdamT said:
90% of the time when I watch TV it's something I've DVR'd, so I can skip commercials. Even so, I'm to the point where I mentally block out campaign ads if I'm watching live TV.
Click to expand...

I think due to how the market gets so oversaturated, that's the response most people give. Makes you wonder at what point all that money just goes to waste
 
TurtleDude said:
its hilarious that Obama Inc hard core supporters pretend not to have seen the ads

here is the reference to the 250K one

Obama’s new campaign ad on dueling budget plans - The Washington Post


The other one I just saw for the first time yesterday, cannot find it on youtube yet
Click to expand...

Here's one you might have missed, it gets a checkmark for accuracy too.




This ad is tough, but we cannot fault the accuracy of its key points. To some extent, the Romney campaign has been hoist with its own petard by refusing to provide sufficient detail that shows how the numbers add up in Romney’s tax and budget plans. So we are left with the judgment of a respected and independent third party.

We hold campaign ads to a high standard, particularly attack ads. If Romney releases the missing details, and a new analysis finds that Romney can meet the stated goals of his tax plan, then we can certainly revisit this analysis. But, until then, for the first time in this frequently nasty campaign, we award a rare Geppetto Checkmark for a campaign ad.
Click to expand...
 
Romney pays more income tax than 70 Million americans combined. that's pretty sad that so many people aren't paying their share
 
I agree. We need to return to the Clinton era rates so EVERYONE can pay more until we work our way out of debt. Everyone.
 
specklebang said:
I agree. We need to return to the Clinton era rates so EVERYONE can pay more until we work our way out of debt. Everyone.
Click to expand...

I would say if we could stave off raising rates on the middle class for a couple years that would be good..but yes, ultimately higher rates is our way to dig outta this self dug hole
 
TurtleDude said:
Romney pays more income tax than 70 Million americans combined. that's pretty sad that so many people aren't paying their share
Click to expand...

That's because the income of the top 1% has grown 280% over the past 30 years and the income of the top fifth of income earners has grown 90+% in the past 30 years while the income of the middle class has only grown around 23-35% over the past 30 years. In other words, this economy has been far favoring the top earners leaving the middle class in the dust. The middle class isn't paying as much because they haven't grown as much. Wonder why that is. Could it be the massively reduced income tax rates of the highest earners that began occuring 30 years ago?
 
frogloe said:
That's because the income of the top 1% has grown 280% over the past 30 years and the income of the top fifth of income earners has grown 90+% in the past 30 years while the income of the middle class has only grown around 23-35% over the past 30 years. In other words, this economy has been far favoring the top earners leaving the middle class in the dust. The middle class isn't paying as much because they haven't grown as much. Wonder why that is. Could it be the massively reduced income tax rates of the highest earners that began occuring 30 years ago?
Click to expand...

What would be the environment if those who do have money to invest had not increased their wealth

think about that.

most economies favor those with wealth and knowledge.

do you know that in the last 7 years three men have won more Grand slam tennis tournament titles than the rest of the world combined?


is the proper purpose of the income tax to punish those who are successful because other people are not industrious or talented enough to keep up?
 
TurtleDude said:
What would be the environment if those who do have money to invest had not increased their wealth

think about that.

most economies favor those with wealth and knowledge.

do you know that in the last 7 years three men have won more Grand slam tennis tournament titles than the rest of the world combined?


is the proper purpose of the income tax to punish those who are successful because other people are not industrious or talented enough to keep up?
Click to expand...

You think that any man is so talented that he deserves nearly a 10x bigger percentage increase than other men? I don't think you get it, those numbers are ridiculous. Our economy is growing disproportionately. One class is growing much much faster than the other classes. Think about it as the human body if you will. Say the rich are the head of the body. If the head is growing 10x faster than the rest of the body, you're not even going to be able to support the weight of your own head. The rich should be growing IN proportion with the rest of the economy.

And by the way, the people you say have the money to invest, save about 42% of their wealth while those in the middle class save 13% of their wealth. Proportionally, the highest earners in America are not very big spenders. In fact, it's the opposite, they actually keep a lot of the money held up and not flowing through the economy as it should be.
 
frogloe said:
You think that any man is so talented that he deserves nearly a 10x bigger percentage increase than other men? I don't think you get it, those numbers are ridiculous. Our economy is growing disproportionately. One class is growing much much faster than the other classes. Think about it as the human body if you will. Say the rich are the head of the body. If the head is growing 10x faster than the rest of the body, you're not even going to be able to support the weight of your own head. The rich should be growing IN proportion with the rest of the economy.

And by the way, the people you say have the money to invest, save about 42% of their wealth while those in the middle class save 13% of their wealth. Proportionally, the highest earners in America are not very big spenders. In fact, it's the opposite, they actually keep a lot of the money held up and not flowing through the economy as it should be.
Click to expand...

what I don't get is those who think that because others make so much its wrong. and giving the government the power to change that so they can pander to the envious is a far greater evil
 
TurtleDude said:
what I don't get is those who think that because others make so much its wrong. and giving the government the power to change that so they can pander to the envious is a far greater evil
Click to expand...

It's not an envious evil, it's logical. Our tax code favors the high earners right now. Our economy is growing disproportionately because the rules favor the high earners. It's like taking steroids. Do you think that you deserve to win a weight lifting competition if you've had steroids helping you out the entire time? I'm not saying the rich shouldn't stay rich, I'm saying that the rich are growing way too fast right now. The middle class is essentially to our economy, we can't keep pandering to the rich.
 
frogloe said:
It's not an envious evil, it's logical. Our tax code favors the high earners right now. Our economy is growing disproportionately because the rules favor the high earners. It's like taking steroids. Do you think that you deserve to win a weight lifting competition if you've had steroids helping you out the entire time? I'm not saying the rich shouldn't stay rich, I'm saying that the rich are growing way too fast right now. The middle class is essentially to our economy, we can't keep pandering to the rich.
Click to expand...

complete crap. the tax code favors politicians who pander to the many. what do you think the tax code would be like if each thousand of income tax you pay entitled you to another vote?

how is taxing the rich more going to make the middle class more competitive against the rest of the world
 
TurtleDude said:
complete crap. the tax code favors politicians who pander to the many. what do you think the tax code would be like if each thousand of income tax you pay entitled you to another vote?

how is taxing the rich more going to make the middle class more competitive against the rest of the world
Click to expand...

The lowest freaking high bracket taxes ever. Of all time.

Listen, feel free to look at the income tax rates over time. We had the highest marginal tax rate at 70% until Reagan came along and cut it down to 28% at the end of his last term. Mind you, during the first 7 years, it was still at 70%. We only went positive after the taxes were increased back to 40% for high earners.
 
frogloe said:
The lowest freaking high bracket taxes ever. Of all time.

Listen, feel free to look at the income tax rates over time. We had the highest marginal tax rate at 70% until Reagan came along and cut it down to 28% at the end of his last term. Mind you, during the first 7 years, it was still at 70%. We only went positive after the taxes were increased back to 40% for high earners.
Click to expand...


stop lying. Under Reagan it was 28% what was it under Bush I? and before Wilson it was essentially non existent. Under Harding and Coolidge what was it


RIGHT NOW THE RICH PAY A HIGHER PORTION OF THE INCOME TAX than at any time in the last 7 decades. Obviously the problem is that the rest of the country is not paying enough
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom