I am kind of against it. I just think it goes against the grain of having a good work ethic in society. A person works hard, makes the decision to have a career to have a certain job that can pay a good amount of money. Maybe take risks in life, by starting a business, make a great stock decisions, whatever it takes to make over $250 a year, in order to give it up to somebody else who mad the decision to have a job or career that makes less.

I don't see this as a Republican or Democrat issue, just a social issue that other people are more entitled to your money than yourself...the money that you worked for, mind you. Like you have to be responsible for the financial welfare of other people, or something.

I am not even close to making that much money; I don't feel like someone else has the obligation help me out by a tax increase. I am reading on other message boards of people saying that the rich are greedy for wanting to keep their money, but at the same time can you say that the poor and middle-class feel a sense of entitlement to money that they didn't work at all for? I mean, you made the choice to be a teacher, instead of a doctor. You made the choice of a retail clerk for shoe store instead of a computer programmer. As if I am personally making the choice to be an actress (which may or may not pay decently...not every one becomes a superstar) instead of being a Commercial Realtor.

It rubs me the wrong way.

these aren't tax increases, they simply erase the tax breaks the bush administration gave rich people, at the expense of working people, which, among other disastrous policies, have been bankrupting the country

sasessiontc posted:

labrat posted:

these aren't tax increases, they simply erase the tax breaks the bush administration gave rich people, at the expense of working people, which, among other disastrous policies, have been bankrupting the country

I agree. I wish there didn't need to be any certain classes that would have a higher tax increase, but at this point it seems as if there's no other option. :/

Sure there is. Repeal the income tax. Contrary to popular opinion, "shit gets done", with state and local taxes as well as capital gains between businesses et al.

Sure, we'd have to cut back on "necessities" such as perpetual war, wealth (re)distributions (whether it be foreign or domestic), paying back the banks for deficits, etc. but I think people are also sick of those as well.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2008 12:14PM by nerd.

[deleted]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2009 02:15PM by B17CH5L4PP3D.

BlacklightFreakout posted:

I just think it goes against the grain of having a good work ethic in society. A person works hard, makes the decision to have a career to have a certain job that can pay a good amount of money. Maybe take risks in life, by starting a business, make a great stock decisions, whatever it takes to make over $250 a year, in order to give it up to somebody else who mad the decision to have a job or career that makes less.

So... you don't like it because the people who make over $250 a year have to pay more taxes? You're missing the point. It's not about those people paying more taxes, it's about how much they still have left AFTER they pay them. It's still gonna be a lot more than what you (or a lot of other people) make. And since taxes for lower incomes will go down, you'll end up with more too.

BlacklightFreakout posted:

I don't see this as a Republican or Democrat issue, just a social issue that other people are more entitled to your money than yourself...the money that you worked for, mind you. Like you have to be responsible for the financial welfare of other people, or something.

"The biggest problem with the way that we've been doing things is
The more we let you have the less that I'll be keeping for me"

Capital G

BlacklightFreakout posted:

(snip) but at the same time can you say that the poor and middle-class feel a sense of entitlement to money that they didn't work at all for? (snip)

So... we can't lower their taxes, because they're not entitled to the money they used to pay their taxes? How exaclty does that work?

In the end, it's all about economics. The more you have, the more you spend. So, if you have more money at the end of the month, you'll spend more, helping the economy. People who make $250 a year, won't spend any more or any less if their taxes change, but (middle class) people who suddenly have a large increase, will spend it.

igirl posted:

Since when did rich people not spend their money?

I didn't say they wouldn't spend it, I said they wouldn't change the amount they're spending ($250 is a lot of money to spend all at once). Chances are, they wouldn't even notice that they have (a bit) less money than before the tax increase.

progressive tax rates (those that tax the rich more, the middleclass less and the poor least or none) are the only ethical taxes. the republicans in the last 8 years have given us regressive tax rates (the opposite of progressive). conservatives are supposedly against the redistribution of wealth, but given the oppurtunity, they'll always redistribute wealth from the working classes who create wealth to the rich who find legal ways to steal it. who benefits most from there being a government to protect the status quo? the more that you have, the more you have to lose. and so it's only ethical that you should pay more for the government to protect your wealth than someone does who has considerably less. wealth is made of natural resources plus labor. neither the natural resources nor the labor belong to those who have the most wealth in the current system. the natural resources are naturally everyone's and to be used wisely by the entire community. the labor naturally belongs to the people doing it. it's immoral for anyone to have more land than he or she can actually live on and farm, or farm in community with a group of people who all share their land and work it together. the current monetary and industrial system is destroying the planet to the point that it may not be habitable for humans soon; we could literally go extinct. we certainly don't need more money in the hands of those who are doing more destruction faster. the people who are going to be taxed more if we manage to get obama into office are those who have literally made others homeless with predatory lending. there are houses standing empty and people living in cars, shelters, 4 families to a house, in tents literally, and in other makeshift arrangements. there are countries where whole communities live in cardboard and plywood at the edges of dumps and we are heading for that if we let the right wing continue to redistribute wealth from the working people to the rich. we've gone from the largest surplus in this country's history to the largest defecits. and there are still people arguing that if we just gave the rich more taxbreaks maybe they would hire us?! these people have had everyone's money for the last 8 years and all they've done is use it to buy more government to give them more taxbreaks and invested it in things like haliburton and taken it offshore to sweatshops in china and wherever. we cannot afford to fool ourselves about taxbreaks, what they really are, and what really results from them. obviously we don't have the money to give the rich. they already have plenty and they've gotten it from literal slave labor in many cases. that's the point of taking jobs out of the u.s. where there are labor laws to places where there aren't, or those there are aren't enforced. at that point, the money that was made of our work is taken out of our country as capital and taken to countries where there aren't labor standards. at the same time our government keeps opperating, doing things like the iraq debacle. all this is done on loans, which various people worldwide underwrite. things like treasury notes are how the government keeps running. loans owed to people in china and worldwide. much of this money is owed to the very people who aren't being properly taxed and so the government is going so deeply into debt. the people who are working can't afford to buy the government's debts. the people who are laid off certainly can't. the rich, here and in other countries, buy them. the money the government is now borrowing has to be paid back with interest. and the only way the government can get that money is to tax. obviously the rich should be taxed for it. they've gained the most from this debacle. and it is a debacle. our currency is the chosen currency of trade at the moment, but if we don't get obama in office to turn this wreck around, it won't be for much longer. i don't think you can imagine what it would be like to live in a 3rd world country, but that is what the right-wing is trying to turn this country into. 3rd world countries are run by and for the rich and have no middle class power. this country was built of the power of the middle class and we'd die without it. so when you talk about taxes remember that while we have governments, we'll have taxes: the only question is who'll pay them. when the right wing talks about tax increases what they mean is that the rich could be taxed and they don't want that to happen because it is the rich who bribe them and pay for their power. obama is actually cutting taxes for 95% of the population, but oddly we hear (predictable from bfo, consider the source) about alleged tax increases from obama. let's be accurate: he's slashing taxes where it counts and reapplying them to those they're applicable to. the rich have gotten a lot, an indecent lot, out of everyone the last 8 years. the only question is whether future generations are going to have to pay by living in a 3rd world country (no country can borrow forever: already the dollar's value has sunk considerably) or whether the rich are going to be held to account and made to repay some of what they've looted. rich corporations that have taken jobs overseas won't get any taxbreaks from obama as they have from bush and would get even more of from mccain. they can bring the jobs back if they want taxbreaks, otherwise the loopholes are being closed and they're out of luck. that's not raising taxes, it's enforcing the current tax laws.
sorry i've said a lot. it's late and i'm tired and i tend to go on a lot if i'm tired. but i got tired of the simplistic blind stupidity i was hearing from people who've seen these policies in place for 8 years and seen their results and are still arguing for more of them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2008 03:20AM by labrat.

Actually the only fair tax system is the tax system you will never see the US governmnt adapt, and fittingly enough, it is called "THE FAIR TAX SYSTEM".

Heres how it works everything you buy in the United States would be taxed at a straight percentage that is the same no matter what class you fall into whether its poor, middle, upper. All commodoties that are curently not taxed would be taxed in the same fashion. Food would be taxed as well. After this is instituted, no one ever files income taxes again. Just moneys from everything being taxed and sold would need to be collected on a regular basis and given to the government. The amount of money the US government could save by eliminating all the auditing contracts, IRS firms, building funds, courts costs, investigative fees, etc etc, and only having to worry about collections is beyond belief.

Now the whole premise works like this. Say a wealthy person wants a Ferrari, well Ferrari cost more, you dont have the rich person pay more taxes because they are rich, you have the rich person paying in more tax monies because "they chose" to buy something expensive that they could afford. On the other end a poor man decides to buy a used 72 Pinto hatchback, he still pays the same percentage rate the rich man payed on his Ferrari,but it is on a much lesser amount of money, but the amount of money "he chose" he could afford. So he in turn pays less tax dollars. Say the tax rate on the rich mans car is the set 10% and the Ferrari is only 100$, well the govt made 10$ off the rich man in taxes. The poor man can only afford a cheaper car so he buys the 20 dollar car, his taxed rate is at the set 10% as well, but he only has to pay 2$ in tax to the govt. The rich payed more tax because he bought something more expensive and the poor payed less because he bought something cheaper. Its a true sliding scale based on the persons actual physical spending ability. And some people argue, how can you tax food, what about the poor that cannnot afford food. The government currently gives food stamps, wic, and various other programs. Eliminate the govt aid programs to feed the poor and do not charge them tax on any consumable commodities like food, diapers, medicine, etc etc if they fall below a certain income bracket. If a person is completely destitute and cannot provide for themselves or havent the ability, only then should they get free programs. THE REASON THIS WILL NEVER BE INSTUTUTED is because it gives the people of our country real control over our level of wealth. At least more control over it than the @#$%& that are already in control would like us to have. Think about a poor family that is borderline middle class and cant break out of that rut. well if that household scrapes by long enough and lives below their means for awhile by buying hamburger instead of steak, generic brands instead of namebrands, cheap houses, cheap cars, etc, they could essentially with the tax monies they save by not overspending, literally save their way out of poverty, and then suddenly a family that generation after generation has been trapped in poverty have found their way out to the middle class, and if enough generations do this for long enough sooner or later the number of @#$%& people in the country would decline, because the people would have the control over their financial destiny and not the government. The class lines would begin to blur. The problem once again though is that the government like the poor and the middle class because they can be controlled and kept down. The rich design current tax laws to keep people in those places. Think about it.

igirl posted:

repealing a tax break is increasing taxes

I don't think we should be raising anyones taxes in times of economic hardship raising taxes is stupid. To encourage the economy let people spend their money.

All this would be solved by the fair tax.

Except when you're not REPEALING it because it was written as temporary in the first place, with a predefined expiration date in 2010.

B17CH5L4PP3D posted:

labrat posted:

these aren't tax increases, they simply erase the tax breaks the bush administration gave rich people, at the expense of working people, which, among other disastrous policies, have been bankrupting the country

Exactly. If you make $250,000 of taxable income you don't NEED a tax break. You've already got a plenty at your disposal. The investor class has been raping this country for a long time using tools that are simply unavailable to the rest of us. Someone making $50,000 and trying to support a family can't afford any significant financial investments, certainly not in tools that can be used to significantly leverage tax benefits. They need to pay rent/mortgage and buy groceries. If you're making $250,000 of taxable income you don't have trouble buying groceries.

You may not have problem buying groceries but who is to say what you are using your money for where you might need it. That is assuming that people may have money just sitting there collecting dust. I am sure industrious people of an intelligent mind that create fortune for themselves reinvest their money back into their business. Not just collect in a savings and/or money market with a low percentage rate. I mean, for all we know if you make $250K your mortgage to your fancy smancy home might be high as hell. Or to support your lifestyle.

And when should people have to work to give a damn about their money making sure that others got food on their table?

Are you working hard so your money is making sure that some welfare bum can pay their grocery bills or rent?

gambit phoenix posted:

Someone has to do those jobs- the retail clerk, the wait staff, the teacher, the social worker, the police officer. Those are all middle class positions that we need in order to function as a society. Should they suffer a tax increase because they chose to be a police officer (approximately $50k/year) instead of an attorney (from $100k- $??/year)?

The idea behind it is people that make more money should be taxed more and I don't know how I feel about that. I don't think they should be punished or have their way of life dictated to them just because they make more. I don't think the lower or middle classes are entitled to that money. Maybe it's not an obligation to help out the middle class by increasing the taxes of people that make over $250k a year. Maybe it's an obligation to help out this country that so desperately needs it since we're heading towards an economic meltdown. It wouldn't make sense to increase taxes for people like you and me because we don't make the money to cover higher taxes. Obama is smart in thinking ahead- we're going to need all the help we can get, especially because of the bailout. We're getting deeper and deeper in debt as a nation and since the lower and middle classes can't take another tax hike... well, it seems like a necessary step.

I know I can't take another tax increase. My property taxes have gone up again (for the second time in 14 months) as well as my of living (food, gas, utilities, and other necessities) and it's getting to the point where I may have to put my house up for sale (probably not because the housing market SUCKS) or move into housing that costs less and rent it out because things are going up and up and up.

I can't say I agree with it morally, but, unfortunately, it may be a necessary step in getting things back on track economically.

Food for thought

Actually, I think no one should help to improve this economy. I heard from a woman on a newsradio station who worked for a bank that the bail out possibly won't do a damn thing to improve the economy. She said that no one can tell if the idea will work until the 2nd financial quarter of 2009. That is a whole 12 months from now.

Eh, I say that since the banks partially fucked this one up, let the economy just go bad by taking its course. No damn bail outs at all. No one will have a tax increase. Let the economy suffer. The bail out is no guarantee for things to improve.

And why should anyone have to pay in order to fix the screw ups of other people. Again, let them suffer. It will be a good lesson to learn.

Sudden_Real posted:

BlacklightFreakout posted:

I just think it goes against the grain of having a good work ethic in society. A person works hard, makes the decision to have a career to have a certain job that can pay a good amount of money. Maybe take risks in life, by starting a business, make a great stock decisions, whatever it takes to make over $250 a year, in order to give it up to somebody else who mad the decision to have a job or career that makes less.

So... you don't like it because the people who make over $250 a year have to pay more taxes? You're missing the point. It's not about those people paying more taxes, it's about how much they still have left AFTER they pay them. It's still gonna be a lot more than what you (or a lot of other people) make. And since taxes for lower incomes will go down, you'll end up with more too.

BlacklightFreakout posted:

I don't see this as a Republican or Democrat issue, just a social issue that other people are more entitled to your money than yourself...the money that you worked for, mind you. Like you have to be responsible for the financial welfare of other people, or something.

"The biggest problem with the way that we've been doing things is
The more we let you have the less that I'll be keeping for me"

Capital G

BlacklightFreakout posted:

(snip) but at the same time can you say that the poor and middle-class feel a sense of entitlement to money that they didn't work at all for? (snip)

So... we can't lower their taxes, because they're not entitled to the money they used to pay their taxes? How exaclty does that work?

In the end, it's all about economics. The more you have, the more you spend. So, if you have more money at the end of the month, you'll spend more, helping the economy. People who make $250 a year, won't spend any more or any less if their taxes change, but (middle class) people who suddenly have a large increase, will spend it.

Well, your statement is half true. The more MIDDLE-CLASS PEOPLE MAKE THE MORE THEY SPEND. Sorry, Middle-class people have the worst mentality when it comes to finances. They are consumers to the point of being idiots by creating large sums of debt for themselves. They like to keep up with the Joneses and live beyond their means.

I don't care if you are currently Middle-class but have an Upper-class view of money, the more you make is the more you save. I have worked with wealthy people and the one thing that middle-class people don't know about them is...wealthy people, or people who try to become wealthy are the most cheapest and thrifty bastards you ever want to know. That is why they are wealthy...they save, the use coupons, they shop at Target and Ikea and they buy shit on sale far more than people who are middle-class.

Yes, they buy their good cars, clothes and jewelry, but they use those things to death until they fucking fall apart. Unlike middle-class people who got to buy a new car every couple of years, have 20 pairs of shoes, 10 purses, 30 pairs of jeans.

All the wealthy people I know may be a $2,000 suit, but they will wear that suit probably 2 to 3 times a week for years. They may have a pair of $500 shoes, but they will wear those shoes every day for a year or two. If a rich person buys a Lexus, they are keeping that car forever by keeping it in good shape as long as possible.

If any of you worked in retail, especially in skincare, fragrance or cosmetics, you would agree with me that the rich chicks are the ones asking for the most samples so they wouldn't have to buy shit, while you middle-class people are buying up everything in the store.


No, it is false. The more you make is the more you spend, if you are the typical middle-class person who don't practice saving money and living below your means for the most part of your life. Yes, the government can always count you consumerist to spend your every last paycheck on buying the latest electronic gadget, fashion, gas guzzling vehicle bullshit.

Middle-class people have the worst credit...for a damn good reason. Being a numbskull is what keeps this economy going. Not necessarily making more money.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2008 06:42PM by BlacklightFreakout.

Sudden_Real posted:

Bottom line is, it's a tax increase for the people who can afford it, not for those who have trouble to cope at the end of the month.

But doesn't that make you ask the question...

Why is it alright to strip anyone of money that they sweat to earn? People in the upper tax brackets give away... wait for it... nearly 45% of the money they earn to the government.

Essentially, half of everything they work for. You work 40 hours a week? Guess what, you only get to keep 20 hours worth of pay. It is easy to say "yeah, they can afford it." But why does this arbitrary line between rich and poor make it ok to take what they work very hard to earn?

If the tax rates go higher, why would anyone waste the years of school and hundreds of thousands of dollars in school loans to become a doctor when they know that they won't end up making more than if they used their HS degree to get a job as a paralegal. So, the logic eventually follows that if we don't reward people for taking jobs that require years and years of preparation then we will have no doctors.

America has unreasonably high tax rates for everyone. No matter what you earn, you are giving away too much to the government for them to spend on B.S. programs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2008 09:38PM by explicit_joy.

explicit_joy posted:

Sudden_Real posted:

Bottom line is, it's a tax increase for the people who can afford it, not for those who have trouble to cope at the end of the month.

But doesn't that make you ask the question...

Why is it alright to strip anyone of money that they sweat to earn? People in the upper tax brackets give away... wait for it... nearly 45% of the money they earn to the government.

Essentially, half of everything they work for. You work 40 hours a week? Guess what, you only get to keep 20 hours worth of pay. It is easy to say "yeah, they can afford it." But why does this arbitrary line between rich and poor make it ok to take what they work very hard to earn?

If the tax rates go higher, why would anyone waste the years of school and hundreds of thousands of dollars in school loans to become a doctor when they know that they won't end up making more than if they used their HS degree to get a job as a paralegal. So, the logic eventually follows that if we don't reward people for taking jobs that require years and years of preparation then we will have no doctors.

America has unreasonably high tax rates for everyone. No matter what you earn, you are giving away too much to the government for them to spend on B.S. programs.

Word. Although, I take the third opinion and having no income tax (shout to labrat, I don't agree with just about everything you said about economics but I appreciate and sympathize with your sentiment about "right-wing" redistribution, it's fucking ridiculous)

People must understand that savings increases production because it loosens up good credit for advancements in future driven endeavors. The things that improve our standard of living, i.e., advances in technology to produce more at a cheaper cost or eliminate the need to consume something more expensive. Mindless consumption is not "the ends" despite whatever you hear on the news.

Again, people it's about your wage relative to your costs. Not just your wages and not just your costs. Costs in this case being taxes and political policies which hinder you marginal gains in life.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2008 10:37PM by nerd.

So let me try to undersatnd what you are saying. You are stating that middle class people and lower class people are not wealthy and cannot be in the upper class because they do not know how to manage finances. Wealthy people are wealthy because they are frugal and penny pinch? BULL FUCKING SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How many people in the United States that are the ultra @#$%& and wealthy had to save a damn dime or worry about any of the finances a middle class citizen would to become "rich". The fact is the system is set up to keep the rich, that got rich by working hard before our system was so corrupt, rich, and the rich cannot feel wealthy unless they always have someone below them to spit on our judge their ultra wealthiness by. You could be right I guess, Paris Hilton probably pinches pennies and paved her own way, lets see Donald Trumps children are probably barely getting by since their share of daddys wealth is so miniscule, and oh yeah Jack and Kelly Osbourne are out right now flippin burgers pinching pennies to buy that new Mercedes right now. Dont forget none of the Kennedy or Bush family were born into wealth either. Ford family anyone? You get the picture Im painting here? The ultra wealthy and @#$%& are born into it, they do not do shit but assume control over wealth thats already there. Whats sick is most of the time they piss it all away, and no matter how much they waste, theres always more sitting in their account that was created by their daddys daddys daddy 50 years ago drawing interest. Your statement without your sugar coating basically should have read as follows: Rich people are smart, poor people are dumb. Seriously, open your mind. You have obviously never experinced the joy of a welfare Christmas or Thanksgiving dinner at a homeless shelter. Do it sometime and ask how the people got there. Ask how they became poor, what made it all go in the shitter. You would be surprised. Lawyers, doctors, fadctory workers, psychologists, dentists have seen them all in the soup line with their hands out. There are plenty of "smart" people that end up unrich very quickly. Firings, living above their means, divorces, deaths of loved ones, factory closings, management cutbacks, company buyouts, have nothing to do with your level of education.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2008 09:59AM by Blue Recluse.

kdplayer posted:

Here is an email that I recieved today regarding tax increases:




To those on the left and right, here is an insight into the issues. The
info can be verified on the sights below. You decide.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
------------------------------

McCain vs. Obama


*
*
------------------------------

ISSUE

JOHN McCAIN

BARACK OBAMA

Favors new drilling offshore US

Yes

No

Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it

Yes

No

Served in the US Armed Forces

Yes

No

Amount of time served in the US Senate

22 YEARS

173 DAYS

Will institute a socialized national health care plan

No

Yes

Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy

No

Yes

Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately

No

Yes

Supports gun ownership rights

Yes

No

Supports homosexual marriage

No

Yes

Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase

No

Yes

Voted against making English the official language

No

Yes

Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals

No

Yes

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN

0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose
any change in existing home sales income tax.

OBAMA

28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell
your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you
are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move
into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will
go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are
counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)

DIVIDEND TAX

MCCAIN

15% (no change)

OBAMA

39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock
market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement
accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be
paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president.
The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains
would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the
deficit.')

INCOME TAX

MCCAIN
(no changes)

Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)

Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!

INHERITANCE TAX

MCCAIN

- 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)

OBAMA

Restore the inheritance tax
Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been
in their families for generations because they could not afford the
inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose
them to these taxes.

NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA

New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet.
New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on
natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes
on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for
socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as
other third-world countries!!!






You can verify the above at the following web sites:

[money.cnn.com]
[www.cnn.com]

[elections.foxnews.com]
[bulletin.aarp.org]

[bulletin.aarp.org]
[blog.washingtonpost.com]
[blog.washingtonpost.com]

This email is an example of political propaganda at its best. The level of fear mongering ignorance it represents really cannot be responded to. It would be as useless as trying to explain our political, economic and social system to a gnat. But hey, keep that fear mongering going it's all your side has.

nexus6 posted:

This email is an example of political propaganda at its best. The level of fear mongering ignorance it represents really cannot be responded to. It would be as useless as trying to explain our political, economic and social system to a gnat. But hey, keep that fear mongering going it's all your side has.

First of all, it's an email that I got (and you didn't have to quote the whole thing). Perhaps it is political propaganda but it's still an email I got regarding the issue. Don't pretend to know which "side" I'm on or where I stand politically.
Level of fear? How so? I don't even know wtf you're talking about. Why don't you put that in Laymans terms for me? If you're referring to taxes being raised, YES, I am fearful of that. I don't want more money coming out of my pocket that they're not already taking.
If you TRULY believe that Obama isn't going to raise taxes, you are sadly mistaken. We are in such a state of economic loss right now, it's really fucking sad. And you can bet that Mr. President, whichever the country ends up choosing will get theirs. Count on it.