What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
He sings, he strums, and he works at Best Buy. view!
youtube.com - Musician and Best Buy employee, Keith Parsons, rocks his Best Buy holiday campaign audition.
8 Comments
- dshPls, on 09/18/2008, -1/+4This the main reason I can't vote for Obama/Biden. Giving more of my hard earned cash away for programs that don't effect me sucks.
- PleaseJustDie, on 09/18/2008, -0/+2Media, you said "McCain is planning on taking more of your hard earned cash than Obama."
And your link to back it up says "TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion."
Your link also says "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years"
The only part I can assume you're talking about is this: "Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households."
Which, appears to say to me, that if you make low or moderate income you'll get most of the tax cuts and if you make a high-income (stated elsewhere as 200k) you get a raise, while everyone gets a cut under McCain's plan.
The problem with statement is this though, Obama's tax plan is: Keep the Bush Tax Cuts for people making less than 200,000/year single, 250,000/year married, people making over that get taxes raised back to Pre-Bush levels and give a $500 tax credit to low income households. 40% of the households in the US don't pay taxes so they would be given $500 bucks just for being poor. That money comes from the top 5% who are getting their taxes raised, so that to me sounds like wealth redistribution and not a tax cut, but hey its a game of semantics.
McCain's tax plan is to keep Bush's tax cuts where they are. You don't get a $500 dollar kickback if you're poor, however he does propose health care reform that could give you a $2500-$5000 dollar tax credit. So, for 95% of the country (200k/250k per year and less) the income percentage taken out of each check is the same. As to what percentage would benefit more from the $500 wealth redistribution or the $2500-$5000 health care tax credit I don't have figures.
But the based on both policies both candidates will be taking the same money from a vast majority of people (95%) the only difference is how much you might get back from one or the other and there will be people in all wage brackets that could benefit from either one or the other more and you, not knowing the OP's financial situation, are wrong in asserting that McCain will take more, when it is quite possible that the OP's and even YOU will have the same amount taken and possibly get more back under McCain. - PleaseJustDie, on 09/18/2008, -0/+2Oh and if you wonder why the $500 could be considered "wealth redistribution" while the $2500-$5000 tax credit isn't, is because every legal tax filing citizen in the US could be eligible for the $2500-$5000.
- dshPls, on 09/18/2008, -1/+3Bush hasn't crushed my disposable income, actually. I'm doing fine, and by your ***** up scale probably living like I'm rich(which I'm not.)
From what I've seen McCain isn't raising any taxes, but I'd like to see your links. This isn't a partisan thing really either, I don't like taxes regardless of who issues them. - IHUsol, on 09/18/2008, -1/+2Really? You don't need roads, bridges or fighting against terrorism? You don't need good schools so that young people can get an education and not end up committing a crime against you or a loved one? How are we going to prepare for or recover from a natural disaster if no one pays taxes? I don't like them either but it is necessary that we do our part to help and protect our country. I would rather we care for ourselves rather than rely on money from Japan, Saudi Arabia or China.
- mediablitz, on 09/18/2008, -1/+2McCain is planning on taking more of your hard earned cash than Obama. I would be happy to provide the links that show that.
Bush has crushed your disposable income over the last 8 years. Why would you vote for more of that? Bush has grown government spending (your cash for programs that don't effect you) more than almost any other President in history. He never vetoed a single spending bill proposed by Republican, in 6 years.
Your argument makes no sense. - mediablitz, on 09/18/2008, -1/+1I forgot to add: Experts across the board have said McCain's tax "plan" is completely unrealistic, and basically not do-able without sending America into an even deeper spiral of debt.
Do you need links to THAT as well? - mediablitz, on 09/18/2008, -1/+1http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cf ...
What does "by your ***** up scale" mean?
Am I the one who invented the rise in cost of goods over the last 8 years? The decline in buying power, and average income? That is my fault, and my "***** up" view"?
The facts are the facts. When Bush took over, we had a projected 2008 SURPLUS of 700 billion. Instead, we have a debt of over 500 billion. That is a 1.2 TRILLION dollar loss. Bush was in charge, and he had a Republican congress. Buying power is the lowest in decades. Real earnings for the middle class are the lowest in decades. It is great that you are just fine, so am I. But pretending America can ignore reality is ignorant.
It isn't "my ***** up view". It is the reality of what is happening.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is