Check this out (Isn't Geithner the guy who hadn't paid taxes himself, about $30,000.00? Who is still loving Obama anymore?):

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers both sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to lower the federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere.

And this comes as a surprise to you?

Who did you think was going to pay for all these hand-outs (oops, my bad, economic stimuli)?

Tired of this stuff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Check this out (Isn't Geithner the guy who hadn't
> paid taxes himself, about $30,000.00? Who is
> still loving Obama anymore?):
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's
> treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out
> higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget
> deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not
> dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as
> part of a health care overhaul.
>
> Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National
> Economic Council Director Larry Summers both
> sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about
> taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready
> to rule out a tax hike to lower the federal
> deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care
> overhaul needs funding from somewhere.

Obama won the election on the back of a lie about not raising taxes on 98% of americans. It's already happened and will continue to grow.

Some in the US will pay over 58% in taxes. That's more than Denmark - a socialist country. Even more than France. But then again, some would say that the US is already a socialist country now that Barrack is in charge.

Grumpy Wrote:
> Some in the US will pay over 58% in taxes. That's
> more than Denmark - a socialist country. Even more
> than France. But then again, some would say that
> the US is already a socialist country now that
> Barrack is in charge.

Ugh, I get so tired of people saying idiotic things like this. Nobody is paying anywhere close to 58% now and still won't under anything being proposed. Here is the data:

Table 1

Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2007

(Updated July 2009)

	Number of Returns with Positive AGI	AGI ($ millions)	Income Taxes Paid ($ millions)	Group's Share of Total AGI	Group's Share of Income Taxes	Income Split Point	Average Tax Rate
All Taxpayers	141,070,971	$8,798,500	$1,115,504	100%	100%	-	12.68%
Top 1%	1,410,710	$2,008,259	$450,926	22.83%	40.42%	> $410,096	22.45%
Top 2-5%	5,642,839	$1,286,283	$225,367	14.62%	20.20%	-	17.52%
Top 5%	7,053,549	$3,294,542	$676,293	37.44%	60.63%	> $160,041	20.53%
Top 6-10%	7,053,548	$933,297	$118,139	10.61%	10.59%	-	12.66%
Top 10%	14,107,097	$4,227,839	$794,432	48.05%	71.22%	> $113,018	18.79%
Top 11-25%	21,160,646	$1,817,515	$171,443	20.66%	15.37%	-	9.43%
Top 25%	35,267,743	$6,045,354	$965,875	68.71%	86.59%	> $66,532	15.98%
Top 26-50%	35,267,743	$1,674,859	$117,368	19.04%	10.52%	-	7.01%
Top 50%	70,535,486	$7,720,213	$1,083,243	87.74%	97.11%	> $32,879	14.03%
Bottom 50%	70,535,485	$1,078,287	$32,261	12.26%	2.89%	< $32,879	2.99%
Source: Internal Revenue Service

Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Ugh, I get so tired of people saying idiotic
> things like this. Nobody is paying anywhere close
> to 58% now and still won't under anything being
> proposed. Here is the data:
>


What? You get tired of the truth? TAXES. No one said anything about just federal taxes. Proposed tax increases would raise federal, state and local taxes above 58%. TAXES. Go look it up.

Add sales tax, real estate tax, gas tax and you'd be surprised how much you pay in taxes. Just wait until we have to pay for the health care debacle.

More TAXES....

See, that's exactly what I mean. Kneejerk Republicans start throwing around numbers like 58% to get people all worked up. The 58% figure refers to all top marginal tax rates added up. To get a true sense of what people are paying you have to look at AVERAGE tax rates, not MARGINAL. You can see that even the wealthiest of the wealthy don't actually pay anywhere close to the top marginal rates. Even you added up all the average tax rates that people pay on federal, state, and local taxes it wouldn't be close to 58%. All that has been proposed so far is added a few percentages points on people making more than $1 million annually--really, that won't be the end of the world. Settle down, and save your outrage for when something actually happens.


More Taxes Wrote:
> What? You get tired of the truth? TAXES. No one
> said anything about just federal taxes. Proposed
> tax increases would raise federal, state and local
> taxes above 58%. TAXES. Go look it up.
>
> Add sales tax, real estate tax, gas tax and you'd
> be surprised how much you pay in taxes. Just wait
> until we have to pay for the health care debacle.
>
> More TAXES....

And by the way, the 58% figure was also cherry picked by finding the state and city with the highest marginal tax rates so people like you could make it sound as bad as possible.

Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> See, that's exactly what I mean. Kneejerk
> Republicans start throwing around numbers like 58%
> to get people all worked up. The 58% figure
> refers to all top marginal tax rates added up. To
> get a true sense of what people are paying you
> have to look at AVERAGE tax rates, not MARGINAL.
> You can see that even the wealthiest of the
> wealthy don't actually pay anywhere close to the
> top marginal rates. Even you added up all the
> average tax rates that people pay on federal,
> state, and local taxes it wouldn't be close to
> 58%. All that has been proposed so far is added a
> few percentages points on people making more than
> $1 million annually--really, that won't be the end
> of the world. Settle down, and save your outrage
> for when something actually happens.
>
>
> More Taxes Wrote:
> > What? You get tired of the truth? TAXES. No one
> > said anything about just federal taxes.
> Proposed
> > tax increases would raise federal, state and
> local
> > taxes above 58%. TAXES. Go look it up.
> >
> > Add sales tax, real estate tax, gas tax and
> you'd
> > be surprised how much you pay in taxes. Just
> wait
> > until we have to pay for the health care
> debacle.
> >
> > More TAXES....

One more 'by the way', if you don't like the state and local taxes you are paying you are free to move somewhere that doesn't impose them. I would suggest Alaska.


Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And by the way, the 58% figure was also cherry
> picked by finding the state and city with the
> highest marginal tax rates so people like you
> could make it sound as bad as possible.
>
> Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > See, that's exactly what I mean. Kneejerk
> > Republicans start throwing around numbers like
> 58%
> > to get people all worked up. The 58% figure
> > refers to all top marginal tax rates added up.
> To
> > get a true sense of what people are paying you
> > have to look at AVERAGE tax rates, not MARGINAL.
>
> > You can see that even the wealthiest of the
> > wealthy don't actually pay anywhere close to
> the
> > top marginal rates. Even you added up all the
> > average tax rates that people pay on federal,
> > state, and local taxes it wouldn't be close to
> > 58%. All that has been proposed so far is added
> a
> > few percentages points on people making more
> than
> > $1 million annually--really, that won't be the
> end
> > of the world. Settle down, and save your
> outrage
> > for when something actually happens.
> >
> >
> > More Taxes Wrote:
> > > What? You get tired of the truth? TAXES. No
> one
> > > said anything about just federal taxes.
> > Proposed
> > > tax increases would raise federal, state and
> > local
> > > taxes above 58%. TAXES. Go look it up.
> > >
> > > Add sales tax, real estate tax, gas tax and
> > you'd
> > > be surprised how much you pay in taxes. Just
> > wait
> > > until we have to pay for the health care
> > debacle.
> > >
> > > More TAXES....

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08/geithner-wont-rule-out-new-taxes-for-middle-class.html

This article mentions the new taxes and broken campaign promise too.

Throw in FICA and a few other stealth taxes.

From the great Wiki (doesn't indicate where the income breaks were, just top and bottom brackets):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

Partial History of U.S. Federal Marginal Income Tax Rates Since 1913
Applicable Year	Income brackets	First bracket	Top bracket	Source
1913-1915	-	1%	7%	IRS
1916	-	2%	15%	IRS
1917	-	2%	67%	IRS
1918	-	6%	73%	IRS
1919-1920	-	4%	73%	IRS
1921	-	4%	73%	IRS
1922	-	4%	56%	IRS
1923	-	3%	56%	IRS
1924	-	1.5%	46%	IRS
1925-1928	-	1.5%	25%	IRS
1929	-	0.375%	24%	IRS
1930-1931	-	1.125%	25%	IRS
1932-1933	-	4%	63%	IRS
1934-1935	-	4%	63%	IRS
1936-1939	-	4%	79%	IRS
1940	-	4.4%	81.1%	IRS
1941	-	10%	81%	IRS
1942-1943	-	19%	88%	IRS
1944-1945	-	23%	94%	IRS
1946-1947	-	19%	86.45%	IRS
1948-1949	-	16.6%	82.13%	IRS
1950	-	17.4%	84.36%	IRS
1951	-	20.4%	91%	IRS
1952-1953	-	22.2%	92%	IRS
1954-1963	-	20%	91%	IRS
1964	-	16%	77%	IRS
1965-1967	-	14%	70%	IRS
1968	-	14%	75.25%	IRS
1969	-	14%	77%	IRS
1970	-	14%	71.75%	IRS
1971-1981	15 brackets	14%	70%	IRS
1982-1986	12 brackets	12%	50%	IRS
1987	5 brackets	11%	33%	IRS
1988-1990	3 brackets	15%	28%	IRS
1991-1992	3 brackets	15%	31%	IRS
1993-2000	5 brackets	15%	39.6%	IRS
2001	5 brackets	15%	39.1%	IRS
2002	6 brackets	10%	38.6%	IRS
2003-2009	6 brackets	10%	35%	Tax Foundation

Obama was elected on a promise of "not one dime of new taxes" for households making under $250k.

Then they raised the gas taxes. Libs said "No, Obama meant income taxes only!"

Then they raised the cigarette taxes. Libs said "What ?! That isn't a tax raise on the middle class! You are wrong!"

Not even six months into the administration on those... nice work.

Now middle-class tax raises are on the table (when during the campaign Obama said they were off) and libs try to argue still, even in the face if such a broken promise.

And with proposals on the table such as removing tax deductions for health insurance premiums paid, that certainly DOES increase your state taxes too (at least in Virginia), which uses the fed's AGI as the figure to base state income taxes on. Cutting deductions raises AGI, which raises both fed and state taxes.

Lies lies lies. Congrats demokrats you fooled everyone and are set to triple the "horrible" budget deficit you "inherited". Never mind that the dems had the House during Bush's last two years and could have held up funding for whatever they wanted. They allowed to pass whatever Bush/Rove/Cheney put in the budgets for his last two years in office, therefore the "inherited" deficit really needs to be the January 2007 number, not the January 2009 number.

This is why the rush to do things in the first two years is on... demokrats know that the nation won't be able to stomach their lies and let them keep both houses of kongress in 2010.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2009 10:34AM by conVince.

Yeah - only the Republicans can spin things ... just ask Vince. These are obviously factual statements from the administration on all the new taxes, what are you smokin anyway???!!!

lol

.
Attachments:

We have a few hard choices to make in this country to control the deficit. We can decide like the sate of Califiornia to make draconian cuts in the social safety net....we can inflate our way out of our debt...or we can increase taxes. The sensible way is to do all 3 in a managed and moderate way. That can never be done in a bi-partisan way with the republican mantra of "no new taxes".

It is no circumsatnce that this topic is coming up days after the Treasury Dept met with their Chinese counter officials to discuss their investment in this country. The days of idealogue policy making are numbered...and thats true whether a republican or democrat sits in the White House or controls the Congress.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Well, if Obama and his democratic-controlled government did not have us in iraq and many other countries, we wouldn't have this problem.

To date, $915.1 billion dollars have been allocated to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

no new taxes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, if Obama and his democratic-controlled
> government did not have us in iraq and many other
> countries, we wouldn't have this problem.
>
> To date, $915.1 billion dollars have been
> allocated to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


On this I agree with you 100%. I cant wait to see the republican candidates that espouse such a foreign policy. However, they seem more intent in getting us involved in Iran...Venezuela...between Russia and Georgia....and anywhere else they can dream of foreign military intervention.

Please...give me a better choice!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2009 01:27PM by Vince(1).

The one thing Republicans can do better than the Democrats is evidently whine until blue in the face. That, and take things out of context and turn it into a rallying cry for the extremist birthers, tea partiers, gun right militia groups, looney church goers and Rushbo / Glenn Beck worshippers.

I hear we're gonna pay 122% tax. Someone impeach this guy already.

I better go out and buy some more ammo, because if that happend, it'll be apocolyptic.

I believe Nostradomas predicted the 122% tax thing too, so it must be true.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/03/obama.economy/index.html

"The White House shot down concerns Monday that middle-class families may face a tax increase in order to combat rising deficits and a struggling economy."

no new taxes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, if Obama and his democratic-controlled
> government did not have us in iraq and many other
> countries, we wouldn't have this problem.
>
> To date, $915.1 billion dollars have been
> allocated to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


wait did you just blame iraq on obama? and here i thought it was that bush fella. woe is me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2009 03:26PM by un-fairfax aboveground.

un-fairfax aboveground Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> no new taxes Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well, if Obama and his democratic-controlled
> > government did not have us in iraq and many
> other
> > countries, we wouldn't have this problem.
> >
> > To date, $915.1 billion dollars have been
> > allocated to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
>
>
> wait did you just blame iraq on obama? and here i
> thought it was that bush fella. woe is me.


Well he is the president and he can chose to put us in war or take us out. he chose to stay in iraq. the blood is on his hands now

do you watch the fucking news? do you not remember us beginning troop withdrawal a month ago? we cant just pull out in one day, we need to have a steady withdrawal in order to leave the country with some stability.

Maybe you need a slow withdrawl, but i do not.

are there american troops in iraq? Yes. How many? 100,000+

suck on that, invader. this is obamas project, despite how he tries to spin it. "withdrawl". lol

Uh, no.

Iraq is and always will be the Republicans failed project. Especially considering how much they "spun" it to the citizens that it was necessary.

Obama is simply trying to pull off the band-aid slowly. It might be more painful that way, but at least you'll be able to allow time for clotting.

§ wrote (btw, §, are you really Prince posting on the fairfax underground?): "Iraq is and always will be the Republicans failed project."

I voted for Gore (in '00) and Obama (in '08) but had to agree with that old 60s radical Nat Hentoff on Iraq. As costly as Iraq might be, exterminating Saddam cannot - under a normal definition of the word "failure" - be fairly characterized as a failure, what with his meatgrinders/shredders, etc. which he'd use on his political opponents/protesters and the torturing of "his" olympic soccer team when they lost etc. etc.

Hentoff (at the time of W's Iraqi invasion):

Why I Didn't March This Time

Their Tongues Were Cut Out for Slandering Hussein

Nat Hentoff

published: April 01, 2003

Often, the executions have been carried out by the Fedayeen Saddam, a paramilitary group headed by Mr. Hussein's oldest son, 38-year-old Uday. These men, masked and clad in black, make the women kneel in busy city squares, along crowded sidewalks, or in neighborhood plots, then behead them with swords. The families of some victims have claimed they were innocent of any crime save that of criticizing Mr. Hussein. —John F. Burns, "How Many People Has Hussein Killed?" The New York Times, January 26, 2003
________________________________________

I participated in many demonstrations against the Vietnam War, including some civil disobedience—though I was careful not to catch the eyes of the cops, sometimes a way of not getting arrested. But I could not participate in the demonstrations against the war on Iraq. As I told The New York Sun in its March 14-16 roundup of New Yorkers for and against the war:
"There was the disclosure . . . when the prisons were briefly opened of the gouging of eyes of prisoners and the raping of women in front of their husbands, from whom the torturers wanted to extract information. . . . So if people want to talk about containing [Saddam Hussein] and don't want to go in forcefully and remove him, how do they propose doing something about the horrors he is inflicting on his people who live in such fear of him?"

I did not cite "weapons of mass destruction." Nor do I believe Saddam Hussein is a direct threat to this country, any more than the creators of the mass graves in the Balkans were, or the Taliban. And as has been evident for a long time, I am no admirer of George W. Bush.

The United Nations? Did the inspectors go into the prisons and the torture chambers? Would they have, if given more time? Did they interview the Mukhabarat, Saddam's dreaded secret police?

An Iraqi in Detroit wanted to send a message to the anti-war protesters: "If you want to protest that it's not OK to send your kids to fight, that's OK. But please don't claim to speak for the Iraqis."

In The Guardian, a British paper that can hardly be characterized as conservative, there was a dispatch from Safwan, Iraq, liberated in the first days of the war: "Ajami Saadoun Khilis, whose son and brother were executed under the Saddam regime, sobbed like a child on the shoulder of The Guardian's Egyptian translator. He mopped the tears but they kept coming. 'You just arrived,' he said. 'You're late. What took you so long?' "

The United Nations? In 1994, Kofi Annan, then head of the UN's peacekeeping operations, blocked any use of UN troops in Rwanda even though he was told by his representative there that the genocide could be stopped before it started.

Bill Clinton refused to act as well, instructing the State Department not to use the word genocide because then the United States would be expected to do something. And President Clinton instructed Madeleine Albright, then our representative to the UN, to block any possible attempts to intervene despite Kofi Annan. Some 800,000 lives could have been saved.

The United Nations? Where Libya, Syria, and Sudan are on the Human Rights Commission? The UN is crucial for feeding people and trying to deal with such plagues as AIDS; but if you had been in a Hussein torture chamber, would you, even in a state of delirium, hope for rescue from the UN Security Council?

From Amnesty International, for whom human rights are not just a slogan, on Iraq: "Common methods of physical torture included electric shocks or cigarette burns to various parts of the body, pulling out fingernails, rape. . . . Two men, Zaher al-Zuhairi and Fares Kadhem Akia, reportedly had their tongues cut out for slandering the president by members of Feda'iyye Saddam, a militia created in 1994. The amputations took place in a public square in Diwaniya City, south of Baghdad."

As John Burns of The New York Times wrote in January: "History may judge that the stronger case [for an American-led invasion] . . . was the one that needed no [forbidden arms] inspectors to confirm: that Saddam Hussein, in his 23 years in power, plunged this country into a bloodbath of medieval proportions, and exported some of that terror to his neighbors."

When it appeared that Tony Blair's political career was near extinction, he gave a speech in the House of the Commons, as quoted in the March 18 issue of The Guardian:
"We must face the consequences of the actions we advocate. For me, that means all the dangers of war. But for others, opposed to this course, it means—let us be clear—that the Iraqi people, whose only true hope of liberation lies in the removal of Saddam, for them, the darkness will close back over them again; and he will be free to take his revenge upon those he must know wish him gone.

"And if this house now demands that at this moment, faced with this threat from this regime, that British troops are pulled back, that we turn away at the point of reckoning, and that is what it means—what then?

"What will Saddam feel? Strengthened beyond measure. What will the other states who tyrannise their people, the terrorists who threaten our existence, what will they take from that?. . . Who will celebrate and who will weep?"

The letters section of The New York Times is sometimes more penetrating than the editorials. A March 23 letter from Lawrence Borok: "As someone who was very active in the [anti-Vietnam War] protests, I think that the antiwar activists are totally wrong on this one. Granted, President Bush's insensitive policies in many areas dear to liberals (I am one) naturally make me suspicious of his motives.

But even if he's doing it for all the wrong reasons, have they all forgotten about the Iraqi people?"

And, in the March 23 New York Times Magazine, Michael Ignatieff, a longtime human rights investigator, wrote of "14,000 'writers, academics, and other intellectuals'—many of them my friends—[who] published a petition against the war . . . condemning the Iraqi regime for its human rights violations and supporting 'efforts by the Iraqi opposition to create a democratic, multi-ethnic, and multireligious Iraq.' " But they say, he adds, that waging war at this time is "morally unacceptable."

"I wonder," Ignatieff wrote—as I also wonder—"what their support for the Iraqi opposition amounts to."

Obama is a communist...

Obama is a liar...

Impeach the asshole

Linda is a dumb bitch.

slay the whore.

/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 08:37PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama IS acting like a Communist. Much of what he
> says indicates he IS a liar ... I never knew my
> spiritual leader and godfather to my children was
> such a left wing radical. I never heard him say
> God Damn America ...
>
> Yet, you call Linda a whore.
>
> ha
Attachments:

Gaylias,

Why do liberals have such short dicks?
Attachments:

RestonLass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And this comes as a surprise to you?
>
> Who did you think was going to pay for all these
> hand-outs (oops, my bad, economic stimuli)?

Yeah, real shock, huh?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being vague is almost as fun as that other thing.