Election Taxes » Estimate your 2009 - 2012 taxes

Interesting...

I think the presidential candidates are just a gimmick to get elected. The times probably won't be right to cut taxes for anyone for a while when the next president comes to office. Clinton promised to cut taxes before getting elected and didn't do it.

BO is a leftist. He is, in no way, a moderate or someone who cares about the
American taxpayer. democrats can't stand prosperity unless it, in some way,
comes from the government.

BO will, in some way, screw the USA tax payer. That's the democrat way. They
depend upon welfare and screwing the rich for votes.

That's the basic mindset of the left. TAX TAX TAX!

I don't get it. Just because somebody makes a lot of money they need to be
punished. That's absolutely, and unequivocally, stupid. Yes, I left my normal
moderate stance and made a stand for what's right and said, STUPID!

It's not the governments, or the left wing extremists, money. It's ours and we
want more of it.

B.O is a liar. He will raise taxes which will, in turn, effect, in a big fat negative
way, the American employee and taxpayer..


PERIOD!




democratic is a process...
democrat is what they are...

Sounds like something executives of Lehman Bros and WaMu said as they walked out the door with their severance pay.

Sorry, but I think most Americans are feeling pretty screwed over about now..

__________________
" You've Been Thunder Struck ! "

Prefer that over the basic mindset of the right....Surround yourself with bumbling cronies

I like the 95% get a tax break headline...Means a lot more to me than a lame spending freeze that we all know won't happen

__________________
Dr. Spaceman: Now Jenna, medically speaking for your height your weight puts you what we call the "disgusting" range. Fortunately there are solutions. For example, crystal meth has been shown to be very effective. How important is tooth retention to you?

That's true. Clinton promised and promised tax cuts. Hahahahahahahahahah!
Imagine that, aA leftist honestly and truly wanting tax cuts. That's a laugh. I
mean a 100% gut buster.

Naturally, Clinton fought them. algore didn't want them either, but algore
doesn't count, not even to 10. Of course he fought them. If there's one thing
the left doesn't want it's more money in the pockets of middle class America.

Throughout his presidency Clinton fought tax cuts. Yeah, he promised them but
he was a leftist. He didn't mean it by any stretch of the imagination. He fought
them tooth and nail because the modern leftist can't stand them. When
taxpayers have more money they depend less upon the government. Leftist
believe that everybody should be dependent upon the government. It
empowers them.

John F. Kennedy was the last democrat to lower taxes on the rich. But that's
understandable. He wasn't a leftist. However, left winged extremist knee jerk
reactionary liberals, who want to cram their dogma of intolerance and hate
down everyone's throat, can't stand them. There's no way they want middle
class Americans to have more money. No way at all.

Then, in 1996, the Republicans made him carry out his promise to cut taxes and
lose democrat votes. He didn't want to cut taxes. algore didn't want them,
either. DUH! Taxes are a good thing.

I think leftists get horrible stomach cramps when taxes are cut and Americans
prosper.

Maybe worse.

democratic is a process...
democrat is what they are.

Cut taxes. Cut them to the bone.

Of course we do. We need permanent tax cuts across the board.

Big fat permanent tax cuts for everybody, across the board.

Yeah, sure, do it by abolishing welfare and have hundreds more people begging in the street, maybe even dozens constantly knocking at your door wanting a loaf of bread. Instead of bread, a bunch of them will get a bullet in the head, instead, to solve their problems.

Hey, are you ever wrong to the maxed out. I'm a leftist and I just get thrills up and down my spine seeing how much bigger Obama wants to cut my taxes over McCain. So Prunepicker, no doubt, you are just all out flat wrong on this assumption you have about leftists. I'll admit, though, leftists do, indeed, want Americans to prosper in order to see government tax coffers go up to spend on goodies for the public good.

And then hear "What is your account number with us, please?" when you call 911.

I love the 95% tax break. What happens when the rich move their money out of the USA and the 5% people become the $50,000 or more?

I'm going to have to call BS on part of that statement. I don't see how Clinton was a 'leftist.' Slightly left of center yes but not hard-left. A leftist would not have supported the largest realignment of the welfare system is US history. A leftist would not have supported the death penalty. A leftist would not have desired a balanced budget as much as the Republican Congress did throughout the late 1990s. He was a strong supporter of NAFTA, which has traditionally been a conservative issue. Also he did sign a few tax cuts. I had to look it up because I couldn't remember what year it was, but it was called the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. It included tax cuts for small businesses and low-income families. It did though include a tax increase for those making over $250k a year.

I would categorize him as a moderate.

Saturn would become a luxury brand then I guess

__________________
Dr. Spaceman: Now Jenna, medically speaking for your height your weight puts you what we call the "disgusting" range. Fortunately there are solutions. For example, crystal meth has been shown to be very effective. How important is tooth retention to you?

$700 billion bailout, $1 trillion war, Billions in Social Security.... I don't think this nation is in any position right now for tax cuts. I believe the concept tax cuts should be strictly off the table until the budget gets balanced, the social security mess gets fixed, the economic crisis turns around, and we are spending less on the Iraq war. I also believe there should be a basic stop in additional spending until the budget is back in order.

off topic i know, but surprisingly Saturn is actually working it's way up there. Their new cars are really nice and eventually they want to take the place of what Oldsmobile left off. (not quite "luxury" I know, but definitely better than their plastic days)

Abolishing welfare will mean that they will have to take responsibility for their
actions instead of being funded by taxpayers for their irresponsibility.

I'm all for taking care of orphan's, under the age of 21, and widows even
thought it's not Constitutional.

Our family business was a large welfare provider for medical durable goods for
about 25 years. Dad was a democrat. It was sickening to see working families
trying to scrape money together to buy what they needed while those on
welfare came in acting like they owned the world and rant if what they wanted
wasn't available on the card.

Rarely would a welfare recipient return off of welfare because they did what
they were supposed to do, i.e. get a job.

Reduce poverty, indeed. Increase government funded irresponsibly? Yes.

There weren't dozens of people knocking on our door in the 60's asking for
handouts. May one or two a year. But come to think of it, since poverty has
increased exponentially because of welfare...

Now they're on the streets making $50,000 a year and tax free. Those people
may be the ones who are irritated if welfare was done away with.

As far a a bullet in the head, that's not an accurate statement.

I stand corrected, to some degree. You certainly show a degree of positive
analysis than most of the posters.

The gist of the post was his stance on tax cuts. democrats don't like tax cuts,
regardless of who the beneficiary is. Although he ran his 1992 campaign on tax
cuts for the middle class, he reneged on them immediately after being elected.

He lied and his record shows it. He did absolutely nothing to give the middle
class a tax cut. The running joke at our house was, "if we receive any more
Clinton tax cuts we'll have to close the business." We closed the business :-(
after 42 years.

I was all for NAFTA, but it needs revising, a lot of revising.

The welfare realignment wasn't much of a realignment. Before the realignment
all recipients (that means all recipients) were responsible if they damaged or lost
the durable medical goods that were provided. Under the so-called realignment,
all a recipient had to do was ask for more. Hardly a responsible item for the
government to support, but after all, the democrats were in control. A large
number of welfare recipients were voters. Go figure.

While we were supplying durable medical goods to welfare recipients they could
get whatever they wanted, even if they damaged them. It was easier to get
more benefits than ever. The welfare recipient was less responsible than ever
for taking care of the product they were given. If you don't pay for it you aren't
necessarily going to take care of it.

As far as the Balanced Budget is concerned, it wasn't Clinton's idea to balance
the budget. The 1996 Republicans, who controlled Congress for the first time
since the 50's, made him agree on doing the right thing. They gave him a
balanced budget from day one, but he didn't want it. He succumbed and signed
the bill, reluctantly. Very reluctantly. He did take all of the credit, at least the
media gave him all the credit.

Thank goodness we don't have hellary care.

The same thing with the tax cuts. President Clinton wasn't about to give the
middle class, or anybody else, a tax cut. The 1996 Republican House and
Senate had veto proof dominion. He had to give the middle class a tax cut, so
he signed the bill. He didn't want to give anybody a tax cut, otherwise, he
would have given them the cut from day one.

As stated previously, he didn't.

The tax cut he agreed to wasn't enough to stimulate the economy. Very few
middle class tax payers provide employment The upper class, however, does.
That's something the left refused to acknowledge. They should have had a big
tax cut. President Kennedy and President Reagan proved it, and it worked.

Tax cuts on the so-called rich have always worked.

Aside, for those who don't know what always means, it mean always.

You're right that President Clinton wasn't a leftist, as most democrats are,
however, I don't think he was a moderate. How many times did he stick his
finger in the air to see which way the winds (constituents) were blowing. It
was non-stop.

Thanks for pointing out my error.

Prune

Tax cuts on the so called rich have always worked? Ha, how seriously wrong you are. HELLO, WAKE UP! Look what's happening to the economy? Many of the rich took their tax cuts and gambled them on paper instruments on Wall Street. Many are worthless now. Others took American jobs to Mexico or overseas and claimed more tax cuts.

Meanwhile, at least OKC proves its prosperity didn't require tax cuts. In undeniable fact, raising sales taxes and keeping them up helped bring about prosperity.

Yes, nobody ever gets off welfare voluntarily. We have a nation full of government paid for cadillac driving welfare queens.

Except, of course, that stereotype has been roundly debunked. But why let fact get in the way of a convenient way to vilify the poor?

Tax cuts always work. The Bush tax cuts were minuscule at best. They need to
be big and especially for those who put people to work and who are capable of
bringing the jobs back.

There are far, far more rich people who didn't gamble on Wallstreet than those
who did.

The fiasco with Bear Sterns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Mortgage debacle
didn't happen because of tax cuts. The largest part came from the Community
Reinvestment Act from 1977. It was a great idea but people began abusing
the privilege, not right, to get a loan and providing loans for houses.

It needs to be changed to if you can't afford the loan you can't have it.

Sending jobs overseas doesn't create tax cuts. They make income but not
locally. The money stays where it's made. That's not a tax cut. Cut the taxes
and bring the jobs back.

The tax plans promulgated by both campaigns are complete and utter bullcrap. Considering the programs each seeks to implement or continue, not raising taxes, frankly, would be fiscally irresponsible. Attempting to provide more services while asking for less in tax revenue is like living on a credit card -- it either ends in major cutbacks, major increases in revenue, or it ends in bankruptcy.

One of these two will be much like George Bush Sr. -- they're running on a platform of 'no new taxes' for the middle class and will ultimately have to renege. I don't see a future without higher taxes across the board.

If we want prescription drug coverage for seniors, to save social security, and ultimately to fund universal health coverage, taxes have to go way, way up.... or we can continue to borrow on our children's credit card.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Exactly! That's why tax cuts to the BONE are so necessary.

To the BONE means to the bone. Just in case someone doesn't quite get it.

Dear Midtowner,

I think you've got it. Tax cuts are necessary!

Prune