Warning: Words...

Quote :

"Obama's tax plan: Robin Hood Approach WASHINGTON (CNN) – Barack Obama unveiled his tax cut plan Tuesday in Washington. Some would call it a Robin Hood approach, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. (Related: Obama tax plan: $80 billion in cuts, five-minute filings) "At a time when Americans are working harder than ever, we are taxing income from work at nearly twice the level that we're taxing gains for investors," said the Democratic presidential candidate. Obama said the current tax system is working against most Americans and he wants to fix it, arguing, "I'll restore simplicity to the tax code and fairness for the American middle class. It's time to stand up to special interest carve outs.” Obama said his plan calls for “cutting taxes for working people, homeowners, and seniors." Among the specifics: a tax cut of up to one thousand dollars for 150 million working Americans, a tax credit for homeowners that don't itemize their deductions, eliminating the income tax for seniors making less than 50 thousand dollars annually, and a simplified tax filing process The Illinois senator said that he’ll pay for all this by “shutting down corporate loopholes and tax havens. We'll also turn the page on an approach that gives repeated tax cuts to the wealthiest one percent of Americans even though they don't need them and didn't ask for them." That sounds similar to Obama’s Democratic rivals, including Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, and former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina. They rolled out their tax plans earlier this year – with Clinton calling for “rolling back some of President Bush's fiscally-irresponsible tax breaks for the highest income Americans," and Edwards pledging to “get rid of Bush's tax cut for people who make over two hundred thousand dollars a year." Tuesday’s announcement in Washington is part of an economic policy push by Obama. On Monday, he was at the NASDAQ headquarters in New York City, chastising Wall Street executives for looking out for themselves rather than helping the middle class. – CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser"

Is this tax plan fundamentally different from what Clinton had in place for the wealthiest Americans during his presidency? Will this approach hurt the American economy or will it stabilize it?

Obama & O'Reilly Interview
http://www.youtube.com/v/QhwMRKVeFJw&rel=1&fs=1

Quote :

" Income Redistribution - Robin Hood Obama BILL O’REILLY: You are a big “tax the rich” guy. Under President Bush, the federal government derived 20 percent more revenue than under President Clinton. Did you know that? And the economy grew 19 percent more than under Clinton. SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: You know the famous saying about “there are lies, damn lies, and statistics?” During the Bush administration there was economic growth. Not as fast as during the 1990s, but there was growth during the Bush administration. But wages and incomes for ordinary Americans - the guys you advocate for - their wages and incomes did not go up. Most of the corporate profits and increased productivity went to the top 1/10th of 1 percent … We both come from humble beginnings and the fact is that only in America could we have this success. I am not somebody who begrudges that success. O’REILLY: But you want 50 percent of my success. BARACK OBAMA: No. I would take your marginal rate back to what it was under Bill Clinton. You can afford that. In exchange, I am cutting taxes for 95 percent of Americans. Three times the amount of tax relief under my plan than John McCain’s. O’REILLY: The payroll tax? For people making more than $250,000, you are going to hike it to infinity. BARACK OBAMA: I am not. What I have said is that we have a set of options to stabilize Social Security, which I think is important because there are millions of seniors out there who depend on it. And we have a couple of options. We could raise the retirement age or we could cut benefits. Number three, we could just do nothing. There is no free lunch O’REILLY: You are taking money away from the big earners, and you are giving it to people who don’t. That’s called “income redistribution.” It’s a socialist tenet. BARACK OBAMA: What I believe is, is that there are certain things we have got to do. And we have got to help people who have a tough time affording college, so they can benefit like we have benefited from this great country. People who are having a tough time, they don’t have health care, people who are trying to figure out how they are going to pay the bills. And there are certain things we have got to do. O’REILLY: But it is only a very few that are going to pay for it. You are not across the board-in it. You are saying I am “Robin Hood Obama.” BARACK OBAMA: Under George Bush the debt has gone up four trillion dollars, all right? We can keep on just borrowing and dump it on our kids, that’s option number one, Bill. But the problem is, if I am sitting pretty, and you have got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t, what’s the big deal for me to say “I am going to pay a little bit more?”"

So, is it fair to say that Barack Obama is the modern day Robin Hood? Is taxing the rich to provide for the middle class and the poor similar to the well-known story of Robin Hood? Is this simply a sensationalized version of reality, or is it a reasonable assessment of the Obama campaign's plan to "spread the wealth?" Recently, we have seen that the GOP claims that Obama is a Socialist, while conversely the Democrats call him Robin Hood. Which is closer to the truth? Can the claims of socialism be attributed to McCain as well?

Obama-Biden Tax Calculator
http://taxcut.barackobama.com/?source=sem-pm-fts-tc-search-us&gclid=CJvm7cye1JYCFQKJxgodulkRxw

What does this all mean? It appears that it would behoove me to vote for Obama when it comes to my wallet. The scare tactics of the GOP suggest that voting for Obama would destroy America as we know it. I just don't see that happening, but I do see real change ahead. So the question is, is Barack Obama a socialist or the modern day Robin Hood, or neither... or both?

He would be the first African-American President that represents real change in Washington whose agenda focuses on the middle-class specifically as well as the poor. He plans a net tax cut across the board and will forge new alliances in the world. He is accepted by the international community nearly 40 to 1. He is one of the most brilliant politicians I have ever seen who has mustered a movement of unprecedented proportions. Not to mention he opposed the War in Iraq from the start and proclaims that he will get America out of Iraq responsibly. Is all of this for naught or does he really transcend the current political system? Barack Obama is the most popular man on planet earth right now, but is a vote for McCain the safer route, even when considering the Palin effect if McCain dies?

[Edited on November 1, 2008 at 11:09 AM. Reason : -]

11/1/2008 10:52:01 AM

sensationalism on both sides of the aisle

11/1/2008 11:01:44 AM

message_topic.aspx?topic=544589

11/1/2008 11:07:33 AM

^^

Which is closer to the truth though, or are they both equally ridiculous?

11/1/2008 11:11:52 AM

Robin Hood was a badass.

11/1/2008 12:09:24 PM

Quote :

"^^ Which is closer to the truth though, or are they both equally ridiculous?"

I think John McCain sums up any potential pitfalls with Obama's tax plan and feeling as though the rich are being taxed unfairly:

Quote :

"I believe that when you really look at the tax code today, the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don't pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages."

11/1/2008 12:18:12 PM

So can Obama shoot a bow? If he can, I want to see the video.

11/1/2008 12:23:23 PM

Doesn't everyone like Robin Hood?

I don't ever hear anyone saying ""Hey, that lord deseves his hard-earned money. That peasant can just eat shit."

11/1/2008 1:12:56 PM

no, it's more like "That lord worked hard for his money. The peasant can get a better job if he wants what the peasant wants. He shouldn't have to depend on Robin Hood to give him his money. That doesn't help anybody."

11/1/2008 2:06:35 PM

the lord got his money and title from his daddy.

and he was a total asshole.

he didnt work for shiiiiiiiit

11/1/2008 2:14:16 PM

THE QUEEN OF ANGLAND PULLED HERSELF UP FROM HER BOOTSTRAPS

11/1/2008 2:30:08 PM

11/1/2008 2:51:52 PM

For the last eight years, wages and incomes have dropped for everyone but the wealthiest Americans, who have expanded their wealth considerably. Its silly to think that class warfare is perpetuated only by the poor and middle class on the rich. The economic indicators show that the rich have obviously been much very successful in engaging in class warfare against the rest of Americans.

11/1/2008 2:56:35 PM

thats because they work harder.

duh.

11/1/2008 2:59:20 PM

I think the tax increases should really be at the 500k mark and up, rather than 250k.

all of the folks responsible for the 700B bailout are in that group, and they should pay for it.

11/1/2008 3:03:08 PM

I'm kind of with BobbyD on this.

250k a year still targets the upper middle class in this country as much as it does the ultra wealthy.

All the tax talk is a strawman in my book because neither candidate can pay for any of their programs and offer a tax cut at the same time. We unfortunately cannot afford any type of national tax relief right now.

11/1/2008 5:19:36 PM

sigh. Robin Hood stole back the money that was originally stolen from the poor/middle class. The old "rob from the rich, give to the poor" line was bullshit, and it is ridiculous for the left to even try to equate that with Robin Hood, despite us all knowing that line. If anything, the left represents the Sheriff, NOT Robin Hood.

11/1/2008 6:00:07 PM

didn't they lower that number to 120k? (I've been at a conference and haven't kept up with the news in detail the past few days)

11/1/2008 6:20:12 PM

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Republican-National-Committee-Obamas-Sliding/story.aspx?guid={A50C404A-28E9-4C43-9360-A76BB4A9FC6E}

[Edited on November 1, 2008 at 6:23 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2008 6:23:06 PM

Quote :

" "At a time when Americans are working harder than ever, we are taxing income from work at nearly twice the level that we're taxing gains for investors," said the Democratic presidential candidate."

People who invest don't work?

Reality: investors pay ordinary income tax from W-2 wages, then pay again on income realized by risking the same money. With little help on the downside (capital loss rules totally suck ass).

Do people really believe the shit this guy puts out?

11/1/2008 9:30:37 PM

yeah lets raise the corporate tax, that should really encourage companies to not outsource

11/1/2008 9:34:48 PM

^hes referring to dividends
and of course, you pay taxes on money earned through labor and money earned through investing...

if you take paycheck money, invest it into a company you start up, should you not get taxed on the earnings from that company?

this whole socialism thing has gone way too far, we have a staggered tax bracket system in which the higher earners pay more money as it is...is that not considered socialism of the same form? john mccain supports the increasing tax bracket system, is he a socialist here?

yes, the increasing tax bracket system means richer people pay more, but is it avoidable? do you think the government could operate on a flat tax rate across the board? do you think that if that flat tax rate was too high the lower class would be underwater - which would increase the demand and need for social programs?

do you think we can avoid a lower class / poor people?

11/1/2008 9:52:23 PM

I think if Robin Hood and his band of Merry Men were alive today, they would be considered to a gang.

11/1/2008 9:58:53 PM

Quote :

"do you think the government could operate on a flat tax rate across the board?"

absolutely it could. And when the people realized just how much it costs to run the gov't, they would demand the gov't stop spending so much

11/2/2008 12:00:45 AM

Quote :

"I think the tax increases should really be at the 500k mark and up, rather than 250k. all of the folks responsible for the 700B bailout are in that group, and they should pay for it."

I agree with this sentiment as well. Unfortunately, this tax policy is far from perfect and will tax the people making 250k or more. I personally do not make that amount, so to me it doesn't matter. However, I'm sure some of you have family and friends who fall in this tax bracket who are having trouble voting for Obama because of it. It's understandable and unfortunate that the cutoff wasn't set higher.

11/2/2008 9:09:38 AM

Obama has a trillion dollars worth of new candy he wants to give out. Raising taxes on just the rich won't get him the money to do it all.

And since politicians have such a tough time cutting any current spending. He either has to raise taxes on the middle class or print it up.

11/2/2008 10:26:19 AM

^^uh, that number has gone down to $120,000 per year.

11/2/2008 2:29:49 PM

^How about providing a source for that. And no, Bill Richardson's comment does not verify that.

11/2/2008 2:52:24 PM

haha. Seems to me that Richardson is just as valid as anyone else, given his closeness to the campaign

11/2/2008 3:11:17 PM

^That's why you're you.

11/2/2008 3:21:28 PM

It's OK. you'll see soon enough that Obama was lying through his teeth the entire time. And I'll sit here laughing my head off at you, comrade (still practicing for the new rules the Dear Leader will impose)

11/2/2008 3:23:48 PM

Obama AND McCain have billions of dollars they want to give out.

If you're going to dogg (pun) one candidates plan you should probably go ahead and shred the others as well since they both ignore the fact that taxes will most likely have to be raised regardless of whoever is in office.

11/2/2008 4:39:35 PM

the difference is that one of them isn't blatantly lying in order to get votes.

11/2/2008 5:53:11 PM

^Really? You really think the McCain/Palin camp isn't telling any lies?

Or have you suddenly become an Obama supporter? Hell, even then his side has told lies too.

The only conclusion here is that you're basically just making absurd statements for the sake of absurdity. Fuck if I know why.

11/2/2008 5:57:46 PM

Quote :

"uh, that number has gone down to $120,000 per year."

Provide a primary source defending that statement, otherwise I call bull.

11/2/2008 6:34:07 PM

Well, Obama's own ad just bumped the number down to $200,000. (Obama in his own words put the number at $200,000 - or, as he identified it, the top 2% of taxpayers.) Which would seem to indicate that this top bracket is fairly flexible.

11/2/2008 9:16:23 PM

^^some guy in the Obama camp misspoke the other day. It's already been noted and corrected.

11/3/2008 12:38:06 AM

you guys do know there are two different numbers, right?

11/3/2008 12:53:29 AM

11/3/2008 1:02:14 AM

Quote :

"Which would seem to indicate that this top bracket is fairly flexible."

oh, it's pretty flexible. Just like your ass is gonna need to be after Obama is done taking what he wants

11/3/2008 5:41:37 PM

so are conservatives trying to use "socialism" the same way liberals use "fascism"

because either way its retarded.

11/3/2008 7:42:53 PM

Get ready to have your mind blown.

Robin Hood didn't steal from the rich and give to the poor. He stole from greedy government officials who overtaxed, and gave it to the poor.

11/3/2008 10:11:34 PM

he stole from nobility.

and he was nobility.

so no my mind has not been blown.

11/3/2008 10:20:48 PM

Nov. 4th

Go Vote for Robin Hood.

11/4/2008 6:55:46 AM

no, he did exactly as aikimann said. He stole from a greedy gov't that overtaxed the people.

11/4/2008 6:57:13 AM

the sheriff kept the money thus making him rich. He didnt give it back to poor people.
Obama isnt taking any more money from me that McCain would. And I can bet dollars to donuts hes not taking any more from you either.


also Kevin Costner would be a shitty president.



[Edited on November 4, 2008 at 8:50 AM. Reason : !]

11/4/2008 8:48:29 AM

I hope Obama wins. But it is incorrect to suggest that just because you are not directly paying a tax that the tax does not negatively impact you. An economy is a very complex web of interdependencies. If I tax bankers then individuals will avoid banking activities, which means less competition in the banking industry and therefore lower interest payments to depositors. The higher profits will not fully replace the profits taxed away, but there is no doubt that the rest of society would be sharing the bankers tax burden. This same sequence of events occurs for any subset of society, be it bankers, car makers, grocers, or rich people.

Businesses work best under different forms of organization. Some, such as heavy industry, are capital intensive and therefore tend to be dominated by large corporations with an army of shareholders. As such, taxing corporations results in higher prices for the products of heavy industry: cars, food, airlines, etc.

Some, such as small businesses, are management intensive and therefore tend to be dominated by small businesses with few employees. As such, taxing small companies or their less than 150k/year proprietors results in higher prices for prepared food, auto repair, etc.

However, some work falls in between. It is capital intensive but also management intensive, as such competitors in this industry tend to be very large wealthy families which both own and operate the business. As such, taxing medium-sized companies or their less than $500k/year proprietors results in higher prices for housing, retail space, long distance trucking, etc.

So, take your pick. Whoever gets taxed, all of us are going to help pay it.

11/4/2008 9:18:31 AM

Hes robbin 'n da hood

11/4/2008 11:51:43 AM

i think he's more like anakin skywalker. he is supposed to bring order to the force (US). if he does get elected hopefully he will not succomb to the darkside!

11/4/2008 3:13:47 PM

ha ok i can deal with that

11/4/2008 3:26:22 PM