Speak up about the spending and revenue targets...Very interesting...The prob. is the non-binding resolution's result would have been tax increase for couples making a combined income of a modest $83,000 Factcheck has told us that scenario would be the result... Regardless of target shooting...Bottom line: Tax increase on couples earning a modest $83,000
Barack Obama is against raising taxes on people making less than $250,000. If you want to dwell on the past, Bush was for this "tax increase" too at one point, since his cuts were set to expire then. McCain was for never cutting those taxes in the first place. You are like a dog with a bone. The very link you presented to prove your point proved the opposite. Now you're just going in circles. You started this whole thread to complain about Obama misrepresenting McCain's positions as shown by factcheck.org. You are repeating one of the main misrepresentations factcheck cites (again, in your very own link) over and over and over again. You are obviously not interested in learning the facts. You just want to bash Obama, whether the criticism's been proven false or not.
Inintial intention and actualization differ...Remember the FISA...etc. I'm obsessed with true intentions...That's right. Factcheck disagrees... "The resolution Obama voted for would not have increased taxes on any single taxpayer making less than $41,500 per year in total income, or any couple making less than $83,000."....In other words taxpayers single making $41,500 annual, or couples making $83,000 annual would see increased taxes... Invested in the true intentions, Batman...Don't pull an Obama and fudge up the data....
In other words, you are for Barack Obama's plan but you are against him because you think he's lying. Got it. Why do I bother.
Rox -- it was a budget vote that passed on party lines. By that measure, you're pretty well saying no to all Democrats because they voted not to extend the tax cuts that McCain had been against in the first place. A vote that was a forgone conclusion given the party status. But you probably know that. Fact Check puts the number at which Obama taxes more at $170K. Lower then Obama's $250K, but nowhere near the $83K number you're clinging to. If Obama's propensity to consider tax increases scares you so...then just admit it...but the $83K number just isn't so. Unless...as Batman noted...you also factor in that McCain was against granting those cuts in the first place.
One other note on the March 2008 vote. Obama did not draft the resolution. He could not vote to keep, extend or increase the cuts for those earning less then $250K while letting some of the others expire. That was not the nature of the vote. He had to vote 'yes' or 'no' to the plan as originally drafted by Bush. He voted 'No' -- as did most of the the Democrats. If you're looking for 'true intentions' then his next step of saying "here's what I would do" is probably a better measure then his declining to agree to what Bush wanted to do. So look at his proposals. Factcheck did -- and concluded $170K was where additional tax may kick in. Of course, if you're concerned that proposals for an increased capital gains tax, or that increased rates for those over $250K may be economically unsound -- then by all means -- call him on it. But the $83K figure is just non-sense. And it's expecially non-sense to pin it on Obama, since all Democrats voted against it. So again...if you thought the Bush cuts were super-cool, exactly as structured, and the idea that Democrats may differ on the way they'd structure the rates offends you -- then don't vote Democrat. But at least look at what they're actually proposing.
Could have fooled me with his vote... The look at someone else strategy....What's new. You are like a pig in defecation...Blind and absent of the stench in which you are unaware of being in... Incorrect...I have proved that Obama has fudged the data...I have proved that Obama cannot commit to decisions...It's not about taxes alone...the issue of taxes being raised is my concern on true intentions... Just like SamFisher, you don't get it and never will...You don't understand my intentions, and my intentions are to examine the intentions of Obama for the purpose of deducing command decision making ability...I am entertaining the possibility that Obama could be good, or even great...It is most unfortunate the cadre of backslappers make this a most difficult task...Unfortunately, it seems there is indicators of Obama not being up to the task based on fudging data, while you could state he didn't even need to try... After all who is Obama trying to convince?...Perhaps the uninformed? Perhaps He didn't realize the false statement of "not accepting oil money"...Perhaps he hoped such fudgery would convince himself...Who knows,...but I know after his turnaround on FISA...Anything may be possible...Even dare I say a reversal on his most recent "tax plan".... The criticism has NOT been proven false and please, please,...explain where. The pigs will play...
All I have learned in this thread is that (1) ROXRAN's definition of data is: the internal mental information that ROXRAN possesses about the true intentions of others. I guess I'm interested in more global and universally held ideas of "data." (2) ROXRAN is very interested in one of Obama's votes, but I've seen no evidence that he is interested in about 25 years of McCain votes, which have gone for and against any position on a wide spectrum of issues (naturally). Best post = "Why do I bother" by Batman.
On factcheck.org. In your very own link. But I think I'm gonna be done for a while here. You're too crazy. Time to let somebody else have a turn. And, anyway, bnb's already posting everything I'd have to say. Oh, except for this. By your own link, the "tax increase" to people making $41,500 would have been $15. If you're really that freaked out about that, I will seriously mail you $15.
Thanks for the explanation sans the cuteness from the backslappers...Your input helps give consideration to the reasoning... As much as I lean right on issues, you know I can accept social programs...If McCain isn't right, I will support Obama, but I will examine him very much so for evidence (or lack thereof) regarding strong decision making ability (this is what set Truman apart from most Presidents)... I am sorry for seeing red flags, and they are still there for me as brought up in this thread, but your reasonable explanation helps...I have more respect for you for that...
As SamFisher once said in another ROXRAN thread- "Why are you guys jacking this thread by wearing smarty pants to a stupid party?"
They love the elbows to the mouth...and I love to give it to them...My only wish is I could do more...
Again, the resolution was meant to hit specific details around spending and revenue - it did not go into the details of any kind of tax structure - that was ignored so that they could just get agreement on the spending and revenue target. because the tax structure hadn't worked out, it would mean bush tax cut would expire. but in reality, everyone knew that this resolution wasn't addressing the taxes. so really, it's a joke to say that voting for this resolution was voting to increase taxes - it's a misrepresentation of the business that was being done.
hmm I kinda see where you are gong with that, but honestly I find these little vacations from reality that Roxran takes to not be near as well done as TJ's VERY obvious attempts to start a comedy career. I mean....really....backslappers is the worst insult he can come up with?? geeze...not even worth my time to read, zero comedy content.
