Obama in Columbus

[SpeedTriple44444]

there would have to be ALOT of change for that to happen

There has been a lot of change. Change is all that's left of your paycheck after bailouts, national health care, cap and trade...

[Disclaimer]

There has been a lot of change. Change is all that's left of your paycheck after bailouts, national health care, cap and trade...

I'll bite, I'm in the mood to get into a moderate debate today.

Citation needed. Show me how you're worse off with Obama change rather than Bush change? Has your paycheck shrunk since 2009? The recession started when Bush was in office and Obama has since reduced your 2009 tax burden.

So, everyone touting "those silly 'tax and spend' democrats" -- proof is necessary. Unless you're making over $250k, then I feel SOOO bad for you and your slightly increased tax liability. God forbid you have to suffer with an Escalade instead of a Land Rover. My gosh, what will the neighbors think of you?

[chevysoldier]

I'll bite, I'm in the mood to get into a moderate debate today.

Citation needed. Show me how you're worse off with Obama change rather than Bush change? Has your paycheck shrunk since 2009? The recession started when Bush was in office and Obama has since reduced your 2009 tax burden.

So, everyone touting "those silly 'tax and spend' democrats" -- proof is necessary. Unless you're making over $250k, then I feel SOOO bad for you and your slightly increased tax liability. God forbid you have to suffer with an Escalade instead of a Land Rover. My gosh, what will the neighbors think of you?

You can't buy a Land Rover on $250K?

[Disclaimer]

You can't buy a Land Rover on $250K?

Not a range rover sport. Start at $74k for the supercharged engine.

http://www.landrover.com/us/en/rr/range-rover-sport/build/#__build_and_price_top

Why would you get any lesser Land Rover? That'd just be shallow and pedantic.

[SAMBUSA]

I'd have to wash it first, or he'd just be tasting your lipstick.

I dont wear lipstick, it's lip gloss. Big difference bitch

[SpeedTriple44444]

I'll bite, I'm in the mood to get into a moderate debate today.

Citation needed. Show me how you're worse off with Obama change rather than Bush change? Has your paycheck shrunk since 2009? The recession started when Bush was in office and Obama has since reduced your 2009 tax burden.

So, everyone touting "those silly 'tax and spend' democrats" -- proof is necessary. Unless you're making over $250k, then I feel SOOO bad for you and your slightly increased tax liability. God forbid you have to suffer with an Escalade instead of a Land Rover. My gosh, what will the neighbors think of you?

Just wait... it's coming. Some of this stuff has just been signed into law and is yet to be implemented. You can't continually keep spending without getting the money from somewhere, and we are where it's coming from. The economy is in the toilet, so there are less people working to generate the revenue. The government is spending more. It's simply money out= money in. How can you even debate that?

I wish I were in that 250K bracket as well.

[Disclaimer]

Every debate goes into "fear mongering"-mode

Just wait... seriously? What kind of response is that? People put forecasts and predictions together in order to make better decisions in the present. I don't know how anyone can buy the "just wait" argument. It has no teeth.

Your kids (if you have any) will grow up to be gangbangers and drug dealers.... just wait. That argument is just as solid as any other "just wait" argument.

[SpeedTriple44444]

It's simple cause and effect. You can play it off as fear-mongering, but the wheels have been set in motion. Care to wager about what will happen in the next 4 years?

[Disclaimer]

Can't be any worse than what happened in the last 8...

But, proceed and explain your cause-and-effect along with your citations that validate your thoughts from experts in the field. Unless you're a gov't spending expert?

[SpeedTriple44444]

oh please... you know I'm not an expert. Just like you're not an expert. All I will say is that taxes will increase, cost of living will increase, and quality of life will decrease in the next 4 years.

[Disclaimer]

I don't know how you can rest on blanket-statements like that?

Taxes will increase. Maybe? For who? Why?

Cost of living... where's your reasoning?

Quality of life... as defined by? Cost of living? Location? What?

[SpeedTriple44444]

We'll see who is right, and I'll let it rest at that. We could argue every point until we're both blue in the face, but the fact is that we will never convince each other, and I don't have the time or energy to try.

[Disclaimer]

Sure you do... you keep replying in the thread. C'mon, convince me, I've very open-minded and easily persuaded with the right sources to validate claims.

"We'll see" and "Just wait" are the best you can do? You better come harder than that if you want to opine in a political thread.

[that dude]

Obuma

[SpeedTriple44444]

Well, I'll admit defeat then. I hate arguing... it's so pointless. I don't have anything to win here. I don't care if you don't believe it.

Let's just call it intuition.

[Disclaimer]

There isn't a "winner" and "loser"... there's no "defeat", it's not arguing. It's an adult discussion.

I haz a sad you nibbled at my bait, but won't get hooked.

[SpeedTriple44444]

I haz a sad you nibbled at my bait, but won't get hooked.

Sorry 'bout that. I guess I'm a political tease

Some days I feel like an argument, some days not so much. Who do you believe for your facts and figures anyway? The media? Which side? Is Rush right? How about the left-leaning mainstream media? Are government published figures reliable? When it comes to all this stuff, I'm from Missouri (show me). I'd rather wait and see. I base my conclusions on what I can understand. Like I said before... ecomony declining, government programs increasing... the money has to come from somewhere. It's simplistic, but I believe you will see the trends I was talking about in the next 4 years.

[Disclaimer]

Yea, but your initial post to get a reaction was attributed to it being an 'Obama' thing with the programs listed (though the bailouts were signed under Bush Jr.).

Bush entered office with a surplus, and Obama inherited a crumbling economy and a deficit. So, yea... the money has to come from somewhere, too bad the guy before Obama spent it all without replacing it. Now everyone wants to go back to the stereotypical-Democrat argument that they raise taxes. Well, you can't have a balanced budget and not pay for it somewhere.

But that's the card "fiscal conservatives" want to play. They want reduced taxes, they want balanced budgets, and depending on their audience they'll flip flop on what programs they want to cut and blame the 'other side' that the programs were being cut. There are numerous examples (if you'd like to see them) of Republicans that spoke out against TARP money, but then would go to ribbon cutting ceremonies for projects paid for by TARP money in their districts. So, "TARP money is bad, unless it directly affects me - then I'll take it, but it's still bad"...

So, I dunno how you can maintain programs at their current levels AND cut taxes. That's in direct opposition. They're talking out of both sides of their mouth. Not only that, but on the tax thing... I don't know anyone on this board that's affected by any tax increase directly because of Obama. In fact, I'd wager that 95% of the members on here, all else equal, actually had increased take-home pay when Obama took office.

Unless there's WAY more people in a higher tax bracket on here than let on - $250k and above.

[chevysoldier]

Yea, but your initial post to get a reaction was attributed to it being an 'Obama' thing with the programs listed (though the bailouts were signed under Bush Jr.).

Bush entered office with a surplus, and Obama inherited a crumbling economy and a deficit. So, yea... the money has to come from somewhere, too bad the guy before Obama spent it all without replacing it. Now everyone wants to go back to the stereotypical-Democrat argument that they raise taxes. Well, you can't have a balanced budget and not pay for it somewhere.

But that's the card "fiscal conservatives" want to play. They want reduced taxes, they want balanced budgets, and depending on their audience they'll flip flop on what programs they want to cut and blame the 'other side' that the programs were being cut. There are numerous examples (if you'd like to see them) of Republicans that spoke out against TARP money, but then would go to ribbon cutting ceremonies for projects paid for by TARP money in their districts. So, "TARP money is bad, unless it directly affects me - then I'll take it, but it's still bad"...

So, I dunno how you can maintain programs at their current levels AND cut taxes. That's in direct opposition. They're talking out of both sides of their mouth. Not only that, but on the tax thing... I don't know anyone on this board that's affected by any tax increase directly because of Obama. In fact, I'd wager that 95% of the members on here, all else equal, actually had increased take-home pay when Obama took office.

Unless there's WAY more people in a higher tax bracket on here than let on - $250k and above.

Would you be more willing to buy a brand new car if you paid 10% taxes or 75% taxes on it? They are not in direct opposition. If I have to pay more in taxes I will not, buy more stuff. If taxes go down, I do buy more stuff.

[Disclaimer]

My buying habits for consumables don't change depending on my taxes. Key word: consumables.

If I need a new car, I'll get a new car. But, I might only get a Cobalt instead of a Corvette. I'm still buying a new car, companies are still profiting, supply chain is still necessary and value adding.

If the sales tax in your county was cut in half, you're telling me you'd go out and spend twice as much now? Bullspit.

[chevysoldier]

My buying habits for consumables don't change depending on my taxes. Key word: consumables.

If I need a new car, I'll get a new car. But, I might only get a Cobalt instead of a Corvette. I'm still buying a new car, companies are still profiting, supply chain is still necessary and value adding.

If the sales tax in your county was cut in half, you're telling me you'd go out and spend twice as much now? Bullspit.

I never said the relation of tax cuts versus spending habits were 100% opposite. 50% tax break doesn't mean I'd double my spending. But you defended my point. You'd buy a cobalt at $18K but not a $80k Vette. Of course you still need to buy food and stuff like that. But you don't buy the more expensive stuff when you can get something that will suffice, cheaper.

[Disclaimer]

I don't understand how that defends your argument?

Regardless of taxes, I spend my money based on what I can afford. Taxes, Insurance, etc all factor into that decision. 10% vs. 75% is a pretty drastic and unrealistic example as going from a Cobalt to a Corvette.

If the sales tax doubled from 6.25% to 12.5%, it might make me switch a Buick Enclave to a Chevy Traverse, or step down from a loaded Malibu to a base-model. But it's not going to affect my choice to buy a car, period. Just what KIND of car.

[chevysoldier]

I don't understand how that defends your argument?

Regardless of taxes, I spend my money based on what I can afford. Taxes, Insurance, etc all factor into that decision. 10% vs. 75% is a pretty drastic and unrealistic example as going from a Cobalt to a Corvette.

If the sales tax doubled from 6.25% to 12.5%, it might make me switch a Buick Enclave to a Chevy Traverse, or step down from a loaded Malibu to a base-model. But it's not going to affect my choice to buy a car, period. Just what KIND of car.

You brought up the Cobalt vs Corvette. Now change it to a Malibu.

Sales tax isn't the only tax to increase. You not bringing home as much money due to federal and local tax increases, on top of a sales tax increase will affect your spending habits. On the flip side, if the government lets you take home more money, what do you do with it? spend it. When you spend it, they get tax money. See the circle of life?

[Disclaimer]

You brought up the Cobalt vs Corvette. Now change it to a Malibu.

I changed it for the fact that I mentioned your 10% vs. 75% was as unrealistic as someone shopping for a Vette and getting bumped to a Cobalt because of taxes. It's an unrealistic example.

Sales tax isn't the only tax to increase. You not bringing home as much money due to federal and local tax increases, on top of a sales tax increase will affect your spending habits. On the flip side, if the government lets you take home more money, what do you do with it? spend it. When you spend it, they get tax money. See the circle of life?

No, see, you're supply-side economics model is flawed. Supply Side economics don't work. If you search ORDN for posts by me and the terms "Supply Side Economics" - we've discussed this before.

More money in your pocket doesn't necessarily mean increased spending - that's a myth. Why do we even need someone to do CCI studies then? Just think about it, if you had an extra $100/month... you'd just go out and spend that on stuff? You'd change your lifestyle to figure out someway to spend that money each month? Everyone would do that? I doubt it.

And once again, I dunno why people pin taxes on Obama. People that do that are wrong, just plain wrong.

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.