What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
1177 Comments
- Nattybumpoe, on 10/13/2008, -56/+501It's 81% of taxpayers. 95% of working class families.
- MediaWeasel, on 10/13/2008, -119/+506You know, the more you scream and shout the more you miss the point because you're making yourselves deaf.
Why don't you READ his policies:
Economy:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
Taxes:
http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/
Fiscal responsibility:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/
Rural issues +economy
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/rural/
and so on .. read some more.
Don't just believe what you read in the right wing press or something you got in an email from your cousin's boyfriend's mother. And how can his policies be pie in the sky when the most respected economists are saying that it's his plans that make sense - and not McCain's. - inactive, on 10/13/2008, -199/+568The guy who owns the Wall Street Journal is the same guy who owns Fox News. Wonder if they share the same disdain for facts.
- 2612, on 10/13/2008, -237/+543Giving people that pay no taxes money is not a tax cut. Its robbing the rich to give to the poor.
- edmoser, on 10/13/2008, -31/+260Did hell just freeze over? I haven't been to this site in a couple weeks and the first thing I see when I go on today is an anti-Obama article.
- inactive, on 10/13/2008, -34/+208Woah. Where'd all these conservatives come from?
- csstudent, on 10/13/2008, -42/+206How did a negative article about Obama make the front page of Digg?
- an0nymous, on 10/13/2008, -58/+201"It’s no secret that the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page is in the tank for Republicans, and often makes factually dubious claims and arguments in arguing for its position. But it’s not often that it says something so silly that it actually makes me laugh out loud — that happened today, though.
The editorial, which is on Barack Obama’s tax plans, begins this way:
One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of “working families.” He’s even promising to cut taxes enough that the government’s tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% — which is lower than it is today.
It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?
John McCain has also made this claim. It is, frankly, ridiculous, a little like a child’s attempt at a zinger — they think they’ve got you, that this point is devastating and proves that Obama is a liar. Except it’s, in this context, a meaningless statistic. It’s totally irrelevant.
Why? Two words: Payroll taxes.
Notice the qualifier the WSJ used in that last sentence? Not “more than a third of all Americans already pay no taxes at all,” but more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all.”
But Obama’s plan just doesn’t deal with income taxes, as the author or authors of that editorial know perfectly well. And with good reason — as William G. Gale and Jeffrey Rohaly of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center pointed out in 2003, most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes:
In 2003, workers and employers each owe 6.2 percent Social Security tax on the first $87,000 of a worker’s earnings, and a 1.45 percent Medicare tax on all wages. Although the statutory obligation to pay payroll taxes is split between the worker and the employer, most economists believe that workers bear most or all of the economic burden.
About 74 percent of filers owe more payroll taxes (including the employer portion) than individual income taxes, including 85 percent of those with income below $40,000. Among returns with wage earnings, 83 percent have higher payroll taxes than income taxes, including 97 percent of those with AGI below $40,000 and 90 percent of those with income below $100,000. If only half of employer payroll taxes are attributed to workers, 48 percent of filers and 53 percent of wage earners pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes, including 76 percent of wage earners with income below $40,000.
Sometimes I’m willing to give people credit and assume that they don’t know about the falsity of claims like this. But really — this editorial was written by people who work for the Wall Street Journal. Presumably they know about the details of tax policy. (If not, well, that’s even more embarrassing.) So in this case I just wonder: Does the paper think its readers, who presumably also know a little something about tax policy, won’t pick up on this?"
_alex Koppelman - solistus, on 10/13/2008, -42/+147I'm so ***** sick of this "robbing the rich" rhetoric. Newsflash: in a world without MASSIVE federal expenses to produce a stable(ish) currency, national infrastructure, establish basic security and investor confidence, etc., not one single human being would make anywhere close to a million dollars (or its equivalent in a world without the federal Dollar). Those who are rich are only rich because of the way society and the economy are structured; it takes very specific economic systems to allow ANYONE to accumulate that kind of wealth. Viewing an individual's income "in a vacuum" outside all the socio-economic factors that determined that income is stupid. Real understandings of economics have to be based on the way these various factors interrelate, not some simplistic narrative about "redistribution of wealth." Civilised human society functions as one massive, complex mechanism for creating and distributing wealth.
It's especially disingenuous to call it income redistribution to REVERSE the Bush era tax cuts that "distributed" so much wealth to the elites to begin with. Most of Obama's "tax hikes" are reversals of Bush tax cuts back to Clinton/Reagan era rates. - pintomp3, on 10/13/2008, -27/+127rupert murdoch's newspaper says what?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story ... - pimpofpixels, on 10/13/2008, -101/+186I bury all Rupert Murdoch stories.
- dshPls, on 10/13/2008, -52/+119Dugg for anti-Obama article on the front page.
- gothicform, on 10/13/2008, -33/+99But Obama didn't say "tax filers". He said "working Americans". You are aware that many Americans who don't work have a tax code but are for example retired... or unemployed?
Furthermore, for those who are not paying taxes it's perfectly possible to reduce their tax payment past zero and make it negative by giving them tax credits based on their need so those working with horrible salaries and have children could get welfare in the form of tax money. Imagine that... the poor gardener being able to feed his kids and them having decent health and education as every human being deserves.
Do you understand now???? It's a system well practised in "socialist" Europe and Canada. How can a newspaper supposedly as intelligent as the Wall Street Journal be unaware of the tax credit system in many countries where people with jobs pay negative amounts of tax because whilst they are earning money it is not a "living wage"?
No wonder the American economy has gone so wrong if Republicans (those in power) have no economic concept of negative taxes unless it's a big tax break for their private corporatio... I mean charity. Buried because of the utter ***** from a once great newspaper. - speedmaster, on 10/13/2008, -49/+111"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it.
Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame and danger that their
acts would otherwise involve... But how is this legal plunder to be
identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons
what belongs to them and gives it to the other persons to whom it
doesn't belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense
of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without
committing a crime. Then abolish that law without delay ...
No legal plunder; this is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony and logic."
-- Frederic Bastiat
(1801-1850) French economist, statesman, and author. - MikeMitchell, on 10/13/2008, -56/+117So whats the problem?
Some guy cant buy his 3rd Ferrari, and some lower income family can finally afford a low end computer. Sounds good to me
XOXO
Commy Bastard! - Treshnell, on 10/13/2008, -91/+147He's still better than McCain.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/13/2008, -63/+118Reminds me of Obama's energy plan where he wants to add a million plug in hybrids to the roads while decreasing the amount of electricity uses.
- ashwinmudigonda, on 10/13/2008, -25/+77This is the problem with a 2 party system, we are wired to pick one or the other. Sometimes we don't pick a candidate for what he stands for, but for the other guy does not. How long before we realize we cannot have a binary political system?
- ajwinder, on 10/13/2008, -15/+66Yeah because he pays for the tax cuts by levying tax increases on the top 1% to the pre-Bush levels. Amazing what you can do when you don't throw money at rich people.
Then hes going to pull out of Iraq. Amazing what you can do when you're not pissing away hundreds of billions on a pipe dream.
If we can spend damn near 600 Billion on some fledgling never-gonna-happen democratic country, we sure as hell should be able to spend hundreds of billions to rebuild THIS country. Theres some serious spending that needs to go on, infrastructure wise, and if it increases the national debt then that sucks, but it has to happen anyways. And frankly, with the ridiculous spending thats gone on over the last 8 years, very few in this country can say anything without being highly hypocritical (or lost in their ways about whats really important). - thatsmyaibo, on 10/13/2008, -30/+80Exactly. Robin Hood economics is not a long term fix.
- FamousAnus, on 10/13/2008, -6/+55@kanabiis
"You do realize that hybids generate their own electricity right? "
He said "plug in hybrids"...not just hybrids. Plug in hybrids draw power from the grid to charge the batteries, which are typically going to be much larger than those of a conventional hybrid. The Chevy Volt that is coming out in 2010 will have a 40 mile range before it even has to start the gas engine. (The intention being that the vast majority of people drive less than 40 miles per day.) Even then...when the gas engine starts, it is NOT intended to recharge the batterys fully - it will only recharge them enough to keep the car going as if it was on a full charge. (The generator onboard can run at several different speeds depending on the demands placed on it.)
A number of other manufacturers are developing something similar as well.
Eh...I'm just glad to see some people on Digg finally being skeptical of Obama. He's a politician...I'd think it best to be very skeptical of ALL of them. - techweenie, on 10/13/2008, -76/+124WSJ Opinion is a super right wing source. I give a lot more credit to the Washington Post's assessment of the relative merits of both candidates' tax plans. (link above)
- wright3279, on 10/13/2008, -9/+56Somehow it slipped in. Editor was on a coffee break?
- an0nymous, on 10/13/2008, -5/+52Don't sweat it Abe, it's complicated. Go play some Xbox and cool that fevered brow.
- inactive, on 10/13/2008, -33/+78This entire article is factually inaccurate and patently false.
First of all, the IRS compiles statistical data that directly contradicts the claims made in the article, specifically the 33% claim. This is publicly available as an excel spreadsheet here:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in11si.xls
If you take the time to digest this, it says that for the bottom 40% of taxpayers, the average Federal tax liability ranges between around $100 and $1000.
Second, the chart that is referenced in the article is attributed to the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank.
From AEI's Wikipedia page:
"AEI has emerged as one of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy."
Not exactly the most reliable of sources.
Thanks for playing. - mpdono, on 10/13/2008, -85/+130THANK GOD! Finally, a digg post against Obama that acutally has been receiving diggs! I hope the devil wore his snow boots today...
- inactive, on 10/13/2008, -57/+94Wow, 2 circle jerks today. Do you guys need some vitamins?
- ogmwtfbbq, on 10/13/2008, -19/+56Bush tax cuts for ppl making over $250k repealed = $300 billion dollars.
- aletoledo, on 10/13/2008, -10/+47While I agree that Obama is disingenuous, I don't think the rich need to be defended in this discussion. They are guilty of utilizing government favoritism and subsidies toward their own gains just as well as the poor are. Corporate welfare is equally bad.
- JoeCollins, on 10/13/2008, -169/+205Does ANYONE really believe that Obama can add all the programs and handouts he proposes and still CUT TAXES? It simply does not make sense. If you believe this . . bend over, America.
- webXL, on 10/13/2008, -25/+59No, not "Some guy cant buy his 3rd Ferrari"
Some guy can't hire his third employee. Where do you think jobs come from?
If everybody thought like you, only the government would produce jobs, and we'd be waiting in long lines for bread. - isukeyo, on 10/13/2008, -16/+48Are you actually suggesting it's OK to steal from someone if they have more than you? I guess I should file this with the logic that many Diggers have about pirating music - it's OK to download illegally since the Music company's are charging too much!
- 2ndEdition, on 10/13/2008, -49/+80about time!
- EmberToInferno, on 10/13/2008, -105/+136Republicans fail.
- ChronicColonic, on 10/13/2008, -14/+45Poor businesses don't pay too well...
- DTJunkie07, on 10/13/2008, -3/+33I think people didnt stop to read the title thoroughly enough before they dugg it lol
- ZenMojo, on 10/13/2008, -4/+33Watch how the rest of this thread goes. You'll never get noticed.
- bemenaker, on 10/13/2008, -5/+34SS isn't a retirement plan, it was as social safety net put in after the Great Depression. It was never meant to be a retirement plan, it is something to help keep you from not having money to eat, but that was about it.
- Reynardine, on 10/13/2008, -16/+44It did.
Obamanuts hold their candidate accountable for his actions. You should try it sometime. - dshPls, on 10/13/2008, -13/+40The problem is you can't tell people what they can and can't have, you need to leave it up to them.
- DreKor, on 10/13/2008, -9/+35Earn it? *****. McCain has 7 houses because he was a Political legacy and his 2nd wife inherited a beer fortune. Being wealthy doesn't imply hard work, just as hard work doesn't imply being wealthy.
And nobody is taking away the "incentive to earn". People always want to have more than the next guy. Even if the government is taking more of that money, they're still going try to make as much money as they can. - stormkrow, on 10/13/2008, -8/+34Actually caramba laid out the facts in a previous comment:
"This entire article is factually inaccurate and patently false.
First of all, the IRS compiles statistical data that directly contradicts the claims made in the article, specifically the 33% claim. This is publicly available as an excel spreadsheet here:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in11si.xls
If you take the time to digest this, it says that for the bottom 40% of taxpayers, the average Federal tax liability ranges between around $100 and $1000.
Second, the chart that is referenced in the article is attributed to the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank.
From AEI's Wikipedia page:
"AEI has emerged as one of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy."
Not exactly the most reliable of sources.
Thanks for playing."
Most "facts" used at the WSJ & Faux News come from the AEI, the same ones who say global warming doesn't exist or isn't man made. It's like fantasy land over at the AEI ...make ***** up hand it to ole rupert and viola now it's fact.
After all the article cited ZERO sources. Check yourself if you like. - kingmanic, on 10/13/2008, -2/+28HonestAbe: then why comment?
- inactive, on 10/13/2008, -10/+36Centralized energy generation and distribution is more efficient than having your own generator under your hood.
Combine that with wind/solar/tidal farms and you have a sound energy policy that is sustainable for a long time.
Use gas for military use only where you actually do need that level of power per unit. - an0nymous, on 10/13/2008, -19/+44Oh look front page. And here's a refutation:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/10/13/ ...
payroll taxes are the reason this editorial is *****. - Jethris, on 10/13/2008, -12/+36When you see the money you work hard for be taken away and given to someone who:
Doesn't want to work
Doesn't have the education that you do
Has more children to get a bigger check...
You'll understand that this Socialism and Robin Hood economics does not work. - FamousAnus, on 10/13/2008, -0/+24@osko2052
"So much for freedom of speech in your little world, huh?"
Actually, I would consider some diversity of thought on the front page to be a good thing for freedom of speech...or did I miss something? - inactive, on 10/13/2008, -16/+40"No offense to carnies." LOL!
- ogmwtfbbq, on 10/13/2008, -13/+37ever worked for Lehman/AIG?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 1198 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is