What is Digg?154 Comments
- coltrane68, on 08/18/2008, -16/+47So...3 mil makes one middle class, eh? How does McCain walk that fine line between moron and jackass?
- OCSmoke, on 08/18/2008, -6/+29I don't like McCain at all. But this is very fair.
Why do we have to intentionally misrepresent either of these men? If you don't like a candidate, make a case. Clipping a joke and portraying it as serious is bullcrap....no matter who you prefer. - EatingPie, on 08/18/2008, -18/+39He said this statement would be misrepresented, and that's exactly what Huffington is doing. In their "transcript" they cut the most important point he wanted to make.
He said the RIGHT approach, instead of raising taxes for anyone (hence the number he chose not mattering), is to *cut spending*. He justified this very well.
Obama said something similar. He wants us out of Iraq because it's costing too much... getting out of Iraq will *cut spending.*
-Pie - dhendrix1, on 08/17/2008, -13/+30Coming from him...that comment was indeed "RICH"
- sugarazor, on 08/18/2008, -11/+27How sad is it that two grown men campaigning for the highest office in the land during a critical economic, social, technological and environmental point in our history, have to go hang out with a guy and talk about an invisible man living in the clouds playing the harp and writing books?
- kinseyincanada, on 08/18/2008, -11/+26so heres the full quote "How about $5 million? No, but seriously, I don’t think you can, I don’t think seriously that the point is I’m trying to make, seriously, and I’m sure that comment will be distorted but the point is…that we want to keep people’s taxes low, and increase revenues. … So, it doesn’t matter really what my definition of rich is because I don’t "
"'m sure that comment will be distorted" wow so turns out McCain isnt as retarded as digg makes him out to be. - sparkleton, on 08/18/2008, -0/+13Well you could try and twist a comment Obama made on a completely different issue..
Or you know, you could state what Obama actually said:
"If you are making $150,000 or less as a family then you are middle class, or you're poor. If you're making more than $250,000, you're doing well."
So yes. Obama's definition of rich appears to be a lot lower than $5 million. - ZenMojo, on 08/18/2008, -4/+14[citation needed]
- mikasaur, on 08/18/2008, -3/+11I'll never vote for McCain...
But wow. He said that this would happen not 10 seconds after he made that comment. Did anyone actually watch the "interview" or whatever the hell you want to call that thing? This blog twists his meaning completely. - sugarazor, on 08/18/2008, -1/+9I wouldn't even consider myself an atheist and I find it to be one of the most pathetic things I've ever had to witness.
- dsgamer, on 08/18/2008, -2/+10how can he talk about cutting spending and at the same time want to cut taxes?
there is no way to do this in an already deficit prone political climate - akchrs, on 08/18/2008, -1/+7then they can get a job and feed themselves like I do. Trust me, I know this might sound strange to you, but if I contribute to society for a few hours a day they actually pay me!! It's a really cool concept.
- Rikushix, on 08/18/2008, -7/+13God, I wouldn't vote for McCain if you paid me, and I'm still getting so sick of this crap that these blogs are spewing daily...taking every little action and quotation out of context.
I guess I'm going to get dugg down for that. I'm one of the few people on digg, I suppose, that doesn't really care what ThinkProgress or Huffington Post or any of the other ones are saying. I don't know about you guys, but I'll vote for who I feel will run the country the best, according to which ideals and platforms I believe are relevant. - ramiro, on 08/18/2008, -1/+7BURIED: Makimaki's usual spam.
- inactive, on 08/18/2008, -9/+15I wouldn't say $5 million a year is rich. If you own a business and you're an S-Corporation you have to include the business's income as your own. Raising taxes on those individuals or "taxing the rich" means less savings for the company. Less future expansion, capital, investments, etc.
Now watch as the liberal Diggers post an article about how Corporate America doesn't save or invest enough money and fails to generate new jobs for all those college graduates; goddamn those greedy CEOs! Obviously taxing those entrepreneurs and creating government jobs is a much better solution for better jobs, technological advancements, a stronger economy, better quality products/services, lower prices, a higher standard of living, and hypocritical ideology. - zephyrnug, on 08/18/2008, -0/+6ha, my friend and i made a drinking game out of it.... gotta kinda drunk too!
- gaqua, on 08/18/2008, -2/+8$5 million a year isn't a huge amount of money for a corporation, true. But for an individual, it's extraordinary.
However, that being said, let's say you've got a small business and you have four employees. $5 million a year is your total sales. Let's say it's a low margin business, roughly 10%. So now you've got profits of $500,000 a year. Taxes on those take away a decent chunk, you've only got $300k or so to grow the company. Hope you've got a line of credit out there.
The problem with people who hate companies is that they believe there is a "Corporate America". There isn't one. America is America. Everyone who does anything and gets paid for it in any way is part of the corporation that IS America. You paint murals for elementary schools? You're part of the corporation. You are the VP of a Pharmaceutical company? You're part of it as well. You're in a punk rock band who lives in a van and plays shows at skate parks and abandoned warehouses for $5 per ticket? You're part of that corporation as well - where do you think your fans got their $5 from? Even if they stole it from their parents - the money still comes from their parents' jobs.
I think a flat tax is a terrible idea, even a flat percentage rate tax is terrible. It just won't work. But that being said, small businesses should be taxed very minimally to encourage growth. Much like people making less than $40k/year as a single individual should be taxed minimally and given college tuition assistance to encourage them to finish school.
Think what this country could be like with a little personal responsibility upgrade and more college educated members of society. Or if not college educated - at least trained in a valuable trade like auto repair or HVAC or something that won't be going anywhere. So many of us wasting our lives working ***** jobs folding sweaters in the mall or cleaning the oil from the fryer at the fast food joint for a pittance for far too long while others never earn a dime of their own until their dad's buddy hires them straight out of college at six figures despite them having no work experience.
I count myself in the middle class - one day I'll own my own business, I'm saving towards it. But with a few tax decisions I could easily see that happen 5 years sooner or not at all, depending on how this country decides to treat the small business owner. - akchrs, on 08/18/2008, -1/+7FYI Obama got seriously owned at the Saddleback Forum. You can tell because now liberals are taking what he said as a joke, and even commented that liberals are going to love his answer, and putting it out as fact.
plus Obama believes in God and God has been a major part in his life and he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. - inactive, on 08/18/2008, -5/+10It's sad because they have to -- the majority of the populace still believes that fairy story.
- BDOUG, on 08/18/2008, -0/+5It is sad. It's also hypocritical. As usual, it's just another example of Christians not following their own rules. Their bible tells them to pray in private, to go into a closet where no one can see them. But 99% of Christian behavior (especially where politics are concerend) is for display purposes.
- Bloodwine, on 08/18/2008, -0/+5The word "rich" is totally arbitrary, depending on what the government does.
If the government talks about taxing the rich, they usually mean households with income greater than $40k/year.
If the government talks about helping the rich, they mean households with over $1 million.
It means what ever they want it to mean at the time. - Thuktun, on 08/18/2008, -1/+6If you have $10M in the bank and are only making $120K per year UR DOIN IT WRONG.
- brickbat, on 08/18/2008, -9/+14I am so ***** sick of people that say they aren't for redistribution of wealth. What the ***** really mean is that they are only for redistribution of wealth in one direction - towards capital. Wealth is being redistributed towards capital all the time and has been since we kept records. Thats why one percent of the population owns like 95% of everything. The economic structures we have in place are a redistribution mechanism.
Here are just a few ways;
1. The federal reserve charges us interest to print our own money.
2. Personal income taxes are levied over your whole income while corporate taxes are levied only on net income (ie. profit)
3. Capital gains taxes are levied at a much lower rate than the income tax.
4. VAT or state taxes are a tax on end use ie. the consumer. Corporations get VAT credits to offset their VAT taxes so the only people that end up paying are people and small businesses.
If you really don't believe in wealth redistribution then balance out all this ***** that is redistributing the wealth from the 95% to the 1% EVERY ***** DAY.
I am so sick of this doublespeak *****. - aradorn, on 08/18/2008, -1/+5rich is completely in the eyes of the beholder. I am not rich compared to people like bill gates and warren buffet. But I am definitely rich compared to people in Africa and other third world countries. I do not consider myself rich but I drive a nice car, have no debt, and can afford to buy the things i want/need. Context is everything.
- GrodyChamp, on 08/18/2008, -13/+17This is a pretty sad attempt at trying to jab McCain. This is completely misrepresenting his point, even after he said people would chop it up and misrepresent it haha
- whytheam, on 08/18/2008, -4/+8***** THINK PROGRESS
- inactive, on 08/18/2008, -1/+5Ding ding ding, another Thinkprogress payout to MakiMaki. Another hard days work spamming ***** propaganda to digg pays off.
- DettoAltrimenti, on 08/18/2008, -3/+7This is a good point- I'd like to see more comments like this on digg.
However, I think the story here is that McCain dismissed the question (”With regard to tax brackets, where do you move from middle class to rich?”) by making a joke- I think this question is important because McCain now wants to renew Bush's tax cuts, and the main criticism of those tax cuts is that they benefit the rich more than the poor. FTA:
"I don’t believe the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans should get 60 percent of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10 percent should get the breaks." (McCain in 2000 regarding Bush's proposed tax cuts)
He previously thought that the difference beteween rich and poor was important- why did he change his mind? - bjornski, on 08/18/2008, -1/+5I lost count of how many times he said "my friends" real early on.
Did anyone get a full count? - russ3, on 08/18/2008, -4/+8I dunno, how does only making 120k/year make you middle class if you have 10 mil in the bank?
- zephyrnug, on 08/18/2008, -7/+11not only did he skip around many of the questions, but he called me 'his friend' at least 20 times. and i am in no way 'his friend.'
- sugarazor, on 08/18/2008, -0/+3They did have to go, otherwise the media and the "evangelicals" would have torn them apart like a Christian being fed to a lion. And while they may not have been specifically talking about God, they were discussing religious issues.
And how sad is it that we need to put it under the banner of religion to talk about helping the poor or being good human beings? I don't need the fear of rotting in hell to make me a good person, you would think these things would come along with basic human decency. - xodex, on 08/18/2008, -0/+3I would vote... for about $5 million?
- californicator, on 08/18/2008, -2/+5Damn... things have changed! My grandpa told me how he could live on 50-cents a week and bought his first car for ten bucks.
- spectecjr, on 08/18/2008, -1/+4Then when you get that much revenue, switch to a C-Corporation instead of one that's designed to be pretty much the same as a sole-prop.
An S Corp is basically designed to be run by a limited number of partners. It's not meant for large numbers of employees. A C Corp is designed to be its own entity - which is what you want for growth, future expansion, etc etc.
A C Corp works like this:
Revenue - Costs = Profit.
Costs = Cost of business, including wages to employees (including shareholders), which are then taxed.
Profit is then taxed at the corporate rates. - fluxion, on 08/18/2008, -2/+5yeah, having actually watched his response, it really is very disappointing that they actually did go and misrepresent it like this.
but really its just the headline where they shot themselves in the foot. they do have the full response in context, and the article is more of an analysis of his tax plan than anything else - inactive, on 08/18/2008, -5/+8HA HA HA HA HA oh man you are so desperate.
- SeanRoss, on 08/18/2008, -6/+9Damn the quote, do they have medics on call for each of his appearances? Watching the clip, McCain looks like he's ready to keel over any minute...
- ponyboy96, on 08/18/2008, -2/+5If any of you actually read his entire answer (hint: it's at the bottom of the blog post), then it would make more sense. The 5 mill comment was taken out of context.
Oh BTW, I don't like McCain, but I don't buy all the garbage that's spewed in the media and on biased blogs. Do your own research and make your own opinions. - brickbat, on 08/18/2008, -0/+3Trickle down economics is nothing new. It was ***** when Hoover tried it and it was ***** when Reagan tried it and they all knew it. Its just an argument to roll out for the masses so you are not so obvious as you pick their pockets. The only trickle in trickle down economics is the wealthy pissing on the middle class and poor as they rob them blind. Just use some common sense. No business owner says "I think I will hire an extra person because I am making SO MUCH MONEY and I can afford it" Yet that is at the core of the trickle down economics argument. Again, they never actually tell you that because you will laugh them out of government so they use terms like "business stimulus package" or call it "tax cuts" but really its just wealth redistribution from the middle and lower classes to the wealthy by shifting the tax burden off capital and on to people.
- ZenMojo, on 08/18/2008, -4/+7Irony: Misrepresenting an article in order to make it seem like it's misrepresenting McCain's stance on the middle class.
FTA:
----------------------
McCain is right — millionaires are rich. In fact, those making $5 million per year or more are wealthier than 99.99% of all Americans. All but the nation’s wealthiest five percent, have household incomes of less than $174,000 per year.
But while McCain now says “it doesn’t matter really what my definition of rich is,” in 2000, he criticized tax cuts proposed by then-presidential candidate George W. Bush because they would benefit the rich “at the expense of middle-class Americans.” McCain said that he believed Bush was targeting the wrong individuals:
"I don’t think the governor’s tax cut is too big–it’s just misplaced. Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans–and that’s not the kind of tax relief that Americans need. … I don’t believe the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans should get 60 percent of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10 percent should get the breaks."
McCain summarized his position at the time saying, “I’m not giving tax cuts for the rich.” Now McCain is proposing to do exactly that. McCain — who, by his own definition, is rich — would get a $300,000 tax break if his proposals were enacted. McCain would decrease middle-class Americans’ tax bills by just $319.
----------------------------------- - normlsparky, on 08/18/2008, -0/+3it seems that the trickle in the republicans "trickle down economics" theory has dried up completely. maybe they finally plugged all those tiny holes in the pockets of the rich.
- inactive, on 08/18/2008, -1/+4Actually you're wrong. Shareholders are not "Costs". C-Corporations pay taxes on profit first, and then shareholders through dividends. Thus leaving less money in savings for reinvestment. If $5,000,000 were the profit then about $1,750,000 goes in taxes. We have $3,250,000 left over to reinvestment, savings, research and development, and the all important dividends for shareholders.
After all, how did these companies raise capital? Selling stocks! It's only fair shareholders receive dividends for financing these companies. Why are we taxing success, savings, jobs, and research? - thespiff, on 08/18/2008, -1/+4The point is that Obama makes specific definitions of the terms he uses, and McCain makes a joke. How can he speak about the rich or poor if he won't define what they are?
Sure, McCain says it doesn't matter because he won't raise taxes for anyone. But it does matter if he decides to cut taxes for the rich, and make up for that by cutting spending on programs that benefit the middle/lower class.
And I love his joke about $3 Million being irresponsibly spent on bear DNA research. Obama cites the Iraq war as irresponsible spending, and that's cost us $12 Billion per month in 2008. I'm not sure McCain makes much of a point there when you put it in context. - flashback99, on 08/18/2008, -0/+3exactly, who are they governing? la la land or a country in an economic crisis? religion is so stupid and yet people want to remain stupid.
- inactive, on 08/18/2008, -2/+5the top-earning 25% of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%). The top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2% of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95% of tax returns
- johnnyboy239, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2Yes indeed, if you're going to make statements and expect people to believe you you need to cite your sources, otherwise why should we believe a word you said?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 156 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is