Sunday 3:45 PM Economic Town Hall Meeting

my goal is to have $2M saved for Retirement, if I can hit that point (which I am 90% sure I will) taxes won't be an issue.

If you get a chance, check out the "Political Notebook" section on the JG Board, most notably some user named FreedomofSpeech08. I'm not even an Obama fan and yet I had to argue his spammish posts. Real winner!

I'm still waiting for bman's source that only 3.5% of American's make over $250K......

cardinal5150 wrote:I'm still waiting for bman's source that only 3.5% of American's make over $250K......

Maybe he's waiting to ask Barrack.

LTRT wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:I'm still waiting for bman's source that only 3.5% of American's make over $250K......

Maybe he's waiting to ask Barrack.

I will have to ask at the campaign, one of the economic advisors used that number ... I was sitting in the lobby and not in the room but pretty sure that is the quote that was throw out there ...

Interesting... (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html#_grp2)

# of taxpayers 1999: $200K+ = 2,427,242 - 2.4%
$75K-200K = 14,904,246 - 14.4%
$30K-75K = 39,762,645 - 38.7%
$0-30K = 45,737,267 - 44.5%
# of taxpayers 2005: $200K+ = 3,559,579 - 3.4%
$75K-200K = 21,203,128 - 20.3%
$30K-75K = 42,267,368 - 40.5%
$0-30K = 37,291,260 - 35.8%

So more people by both # and percentage were in higher brackets AGI levels from 1999-2005....

Taxes Collected 1999: $200K+ = $380,147,963,000 - 41.9%
$75K-200K = $258,537,339,000 - 28.6%
$30K-75K = $212,182,084,000 - 23.4%
$0-30K = $55,529,501,000 - 6.1%
Taxes Collected 2005: $200K+ = $475,594,754,000 - 48.9%
$75K-200K = $287,172,093,000 - 29.5%
$30K-75K = $176,844,733,000 - 18.2%
$0-30K = $33,101,378,000 - 3.4%

Sooooo... the 3.5% was accurate (which I still can't believe) however... looking at the taxes, they are paying more under Bush than under Clinton in dollars and as a % of the whole, which is really what the Dem's want, for the rich to pay everything. So that 3.5% is sitting there with 48.9% of the tax burden... how much more do you want them to have? 80%... 100%?

cardinal5150 wrote:So that 3.5% is sitting there with 48.9% of the tax burden... how much more do you want them to have? 80%... 100%?

That'll probably be Bman's answer.

I always enjoy when dems say, "we want them to pay their fair share"

LTRT wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:So that 3.5% is sitting there with 48.9% of the tax burden... how much more do you want them to have? 80%... 100%?

That'll probably be Bman's answer.

I always enjoy when dems say, "we want them to pay their fair share"

Well we have a $10 Trillion dollar deficit who by hells chance do you guys say should pay that deficit? Waiting for an answer and don't tell me spending cuts will cover it all ....

I will shut up when I get a logical and truthful answer as to who should pay this deficit.

Bman wrote:

LTRT wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:So that 3.5% is sitting there with 48.9% of the tax burden... how much more do you want them to have? 80%... 100%?

That'll probably be Bman's answer.

I always enjoy when dems say, "we want them to pay their fair share"

Well we have a $10 Trillion dollar deficit who by hells chance do you guys say should pay that deficit? Waiting for an answer and don't tell me spending cuts will cover it all ....

I will shut up when I get a logical and truthful answer as to who should pay this deficit.

Get rid of the Department of Education and Commerce Department, move education to the states where it belongs. 50 people to creat a standardized test and monitor reports from the states and place those 50 people in the department of interior. Commerce department why do we need the government promoting U.S. companies overseas, let them pay for it with their profits.

Bman wrote:

LTRT wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:So that 3.5% is sitting there with 48.9% of the tax burden... how much more do you want them to have? 80%... 100%?

That'll probably be Bman's answer.

I always enjoy when dems say, "we want them to pay their fair share"

Well we have a $10 Trillion dollar deficit who by hells chance do you guys say should pay that deficit? Waiting for an answer and don't tell me spending cuts will cover it all ....

I will shut up when I get a logical and truthful answer as to who should pay this deficit.

Bman, you get logical and truthful answers all the time. But you're so far deep into Obamaland that you don't hear it.

Markwes wrote:

Bman wrote:

LTRT wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:So that 3.5% is sitting there with 48.9% of the tax burden... how much more do you want them to have? 80%... 100%?

That'll probably be Bman's answer.

I always enjoy when dems say, "we want them to pay their fair share"

Well we have a $10 Trillion dollar deficit who by hells chance do you guys say should pay that deficit? Waiting for an answer and don't tell me spending cuts will cover it all ....

I will shut up when I get a logical and truthful answer as to who should pay this deficit.

Bman, you get logical and truthful answers all the time. But you're so far deep into Obamaland that you don't hear it.

So the McCain/Bush plan of doing nothing is the answer to the deficit ... that seems like a great well thought out logical answer, it has worked so well over the past 8 years. 8 more years .... definitely.

Bman wrote:

LTRT wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:So that 3.5% is sitting there with 48.9% of the tax burden... how much more do you want them to have? 80%... 100%?

That'll probably be Bman's answer.

I always enjoy when dems say, "we want them to pay their fair share"

Well we have a $10 Trillion dollar deficit who by hells chance do you guys say should pay that deficit? Waiting for an answer and don't tell me spending cuts will cover it all ....

I will shut up when I get a logical and truthful answer as to who should pay this deficit.

As soon you start providing logical answers on anything we'll all be amazed...

The deficit is a problem, and cutting spending is the biggest answer to it, not raising taxes. Your solution is to raise taxes twice on the rich, both by shifting 100% of the current tax burden to them, plus adding to that all the new plans that Hillbama want to create.

Now logically (since you are now sticking to that), if your tax rate goes from 35% to 70% are you going to really try and make more profits? Or are you going to start doing anything and everything to get out of paying any taxes? Your plan will create fraud like we've never seen. More likely than not you'll see more tax shelters popping up, but the last thing that will happen is the money getting redistributed to others.

But this does bring up a logical question. Since Obama wants to redistribute wealth, why isn't he giving away all his? Clearly he's in the top 3.5%, yet I'm not seeing him give it away. That's a pretty piss poor example. And secondly, how is this not communism? You are promoting an idea where everyone is equal and no one gets to advance themselves. I guess you can say that since there won't be food lines it's not what we'd think of as communism, but when you are leveling the playing field simply because of income.. that's not free market capitalism.

And yes.. the market will correct itself without government interference. If the government bails out the homeowners now it will be logical to assume that anyone who didn't default will then do so because their neighbor just got a sweetheart deal for basically buying a house they shouldn't have. And logically, there will be lawsuits from those who had foreclosures in the past year or so because the government didn't act soon enough for them.

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” - Thomas Jefferson

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship" - Unknown (Alexander Tytler is credited with it, but no one can confirm he penned this)

Two quotes that I think fit the Hillbama approach to a T.

cardinal5150 wrote:

Bman wrote:

LTRT wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:So that 3.5% is sitting there with 48.9% of the tax burden... how much more do you want them to have? 80%... 100%?

That'll probably be Bman's answer.

I always enjoy when dems say, "we want them to pay their fair share"

Well we have a $10 Trillion dollar deficit who by hells chance do you guys say should pay that deficit? Waiting for an answer and don't tell me spending cuts will cover it all ....

I will shut up when I get a logical and truthful answer as to who should pay this deficit.

As soon you start providing logical answers on anything we'll all be amazed...

The deficit is a problem, and cutting spending is the biggest answer to it, not raising taxes. Your solution is to raise taxes twice on the rich, both by shifting 100% of the current tax burden to them, plus adding to that all the new plans that Hillbama want to create.

Now logically (since you are now sticking to that), if your tax rate goes from 35% to 70% are you going to really try and make more profits? Or are you going to start doing anything and everything to get out of paying any taxes? Your plan will create fraud like we've never seen. More likely than not you'll see more tax shelters popping up, but the last thing that will happen is the money getting redistributed to others.

But this does bring up a logical question. Since Obama wants to redistribute wealth, why isn't he giving away all his? Clearly he's in the top 3.5%, yet I'm not seeing him give it away. That's a pretty piss poor example. And secondly, how is this not communism? You are promoting an idea where everyone is equal and no one gets to advance themselves. I guess you can say that since there won't be food lines it's not what we'd think of as communism, but when you are leveling the playing field simply because of income.. that's not free market capitalism.

And yes.. the market will correct itself without government interference. If the government bails out the homeowners now it will be logical to assume that anyone who didn't default will then do so because their neighbor just got a sweetheart deal for basically buying a house they shouldn't have. And logically, there will be lawsuits from those who had foreclosures in the past year or so because the government didn't act soon enough for them.

WTF ... who said anything about transfering 100% of the tax to the wealthy? Politics as usual by the right wing ... lie and spin. Give up spin Card, stick to DJing ...

Anyone who believes that cutting spending and letting the market correct itself is going to erase a $10T deficit is just not thinking clearly or coherently. Talk about fuzzy math, I think you guys took lessons in the Hillary math counting class!

Bman wrote:Anyone who believes that cutting spending and letting the market correct itself is going to erase a $10T deficit is just not thinking clearly or coherently. Talk about fuzzy math, I think you guys took lessons in the Hillary math counting class!

Dude, I'm sorry... I'm not an idiot and you're really making me feel like one. I went to Obama's campaign site and I read the following.

www.barakobama.com wrote:Reform Bankruptcy Laws

Obama will reform our bankruptcy laws to protect working people, ban executive bonuses for bankrupt companies, and require disclosure of all pension investments.

* Cap Outlandish Interest Rates on Payday Loans and Improve Disclosure: Obama supports extending a 36 percent interest cap to all Americans. Obama will require lenders to provide clear and simplified information about loan fees, payments and penalties, which is why he'll require lenders to provide this information during the application process.
* Encourage Responsible Lending Institutions to Make Small Consumer Loans: Obama will encourage banks, credit unions and Community Development Financial Institutions to provide affordable short-term and small-dollar loans and to drive unscrupulous lenders out of business.
* Reform Bankruptcy Laws to Protect Families Facing a Medical Crisis: Obama will create an exemption in bankruptcy law for individuals who can prove they filed for bankruptcy because of medical expenses. This exemption will create a process that forgives the debt and lets the individuals get back on their feet.

1. A 36% cap on a 2 week loan is laughable
2. Obama will "encourage"... What does this mean exactly? Sounds like something I can "believe" in for great change! sure!
3. Reform Bankruptcy Laws... so people who are lucky enough to get treated without insurance, or have inadequate insurance and have $250k or more (for example) in medical bills will just be able to walk away... and that won't have a negative impact on healthcare for everyone else? This sounds to me like "as long as you take a bankrupcy, we'll pick up the tab"? IMHO, bankruptcy and poor credit would hurt the injured even more than the injury... and for much longer.

Meta, I hope you don't ever suffer a major medical bill and have your insurance not cover it completely and leave you hanging with a huge bill ... should a cancer survivor be forced into bancruptcy because his or her medical insurance would not fully cover the prescribe treatment ... what should either let these people just die or let them live and be bankrupt and wish they had not lived?

Seems like the republican greed has consumed you too.

Each time I read more of Obama's plan it just looks... pathetic

Bman wrote:Meta, I hope you don't ever suffer a major medical bill and have your insurance not cover it completely and leave you hanging with a huge bill ... should a cancer survivor be forced into bancruptcy because his or her medical insurance would not fully cover the prescribe treatment ... what should either let these people just die or let them live and be bankrupt and wish they had not lived?

Seems like the republican greed has consumed you too.

Dude, you must be smoking crack because you just put a lot of words into my mouth. You know what I think, shit happens. Already Indiana has programs to help people struggling financially so I don't think we need to change that.... tell me how Barak can really change that by occupying the oval office anyhow! Why would a cancer survivor be "forced" into bankruptcy? It's a choice, with a cost. Did you say "Let" them die? Last I heard we had not found the cure for cancer. Last I heard, people are born, they live, then they die. It's a "fact of life". Does that make me an evil heartless republican because I believe in the natural progression of the human life cycle? Or should I just drink the cool-aid because everyone else is?

What I like about this tread is that Bman is getting hammered by posters 5 to 1, kind of like what's going to happen in November.

So Meta to not put words into your mouth when I doctor comes into your exam room and tells you that you have cancer and that the treatment is going to cost $1M and your insurance will cover $800,000 and you need to ante up the $200,000. You think it is fair to tell that sick person that they need to go home and decide if they want to live and be in bancruptcy or die. I am not putting any words into your mouth there.

I think we are better than that as a society, I think we can do things to lift everyone up. Yea, I think we need some kool-aid after these last 8 miserable years. Meta must be doing better off too ... wow I think I have found a pocket of people here who are better off today than they were 8 years ago and they want 8 more years of the same.

I know personally I am over paid for the Fort Wayne markets but I am not better off today than I was 8 years ago. My yearly raises have not kept up with inflation, if I lose my job there will not be one here to replace my job, medical bills are rising, companies keep taking benefits away and our government rewards companies with tax credits for taking jobs overseas. I guess I must be alone here is saying that I don't think things are better now than they were 8 years ago, so I am going to bet on some change. Something different in Washington. Undecided about if we need something different in Indianapolis or not, gotta decide that in November.

LTRT wrote:What I like about this tread is that Bman is getting hammered by posters 5 to 1, kind of like what's going to happen in November.

Oh Obama will not even campaign in Indiana in the fall, these backwood rednecks here will never support this king of change. Hell this freakin state fought the time change and class basketball ... lol. This state loves the status quo, that is why it is a floundering state right now, just ask Caddy Compson.

Bman wrote:So Meta to not put words into your mouth when I doctor comes into your exam room and tells you that you have cancer and that the treatment is going to cost $1M and your insurance will cover $800,000 and you need to ante up the $200,000. You think it is fair to tell that sick person that they need to go home and decide if they want to live and be in bancruptcy or die. I am not putting any words into your mouth there.

I think we are better than that as a society, I think we can do things to lift everyone up. Yea, I think we need some kool-aid after these last 8 miserable years. Meta must be doing better off too ... wow I think I have found a pocket of people here who are better off today than they were 8 years ago and they want 8 more years of the same.

I know personally I am over paid for the Fort Wayne markets but I am not better off today than I was 8 years ago. My yearly raises have not kept up with inflation, if I lose my job there will not be one here to replace my job, medical bills are rising, companies keep taking benefits away and our government rewards companies with tax credits for taking jobs overseas. I guess I must be alone here is saying that I don't think things are better now than they were 8 years ago, so I am going to bet on some change. Something different in Washington. Undecided about if we need something different in Indianapolis or not, gotta decide that in November.

First, three words that I haven't heard on Television in a while.... "catastrophic health insurance"

Second, I am not doing as well today as I was 8 years ago. But that has changed only recently and it was MY CHOICE, and I accept responsibility for that choice. That doesn't mean I can't bitch about the job market local to Fort Wayne... it is what it is.

I am concerned about America as well. I feel like too many people are being given the short stick and I attribute it to a small section of society at the "top" being greedy. I think we need real reform in Washington (and I shouldn't need to capitalize or bold that word "real" to get my point across) because it's so pathetically obvious that most politicians learn the game and become worthless sacks of chit after only a short time in office.

meta4 wrote:

Bman wrote:So Meta to not put words into your mouth when I doctor comes into your exam room and tells you that you have cancer and that the treatment is going to cost $1M and your insurance will cover $800,000 and you need to ante up the $200,000. You think it is fair to tell that sick person that they need to go home and decide if they want to live and be in bancruptcy or die. I am not putting any words into your mouth there.

I think we are better than that as a society, I think we can do things to lift everyone up. Yea, I think we need some kool-aid after these last 8 miserable years. Meta must be doing better off too ... wow I think I have found a pocket of people here who are better off today than they were 8 years ago and they want 8 more years of the same.

I know personally I am over paid for the Fort Wayne markets but I am not better off today than I was 8 years ago. My yearly raises have not kept up with inflation, if I lose my job there will not be one here to replace my job, medical bills are rising, companies keep taking benefits away and our government rewards companies with tax credits for taking jobs overseas. I guess I must be alone here is saying that I don't think things are better now than they were 8 years ago, so I am going to bet on some change. Something different in Washington. Undecided about if we need something different in Indianapolis or not, gotta decide that in November.

First, three words that I haven't heard on Television in a while.... "catastrophic health insurance"

Second, I am not doing as well today as I was 8 years ago. But that has changed only recently and it was MY CHOICE, and I accept responsibility for that choice. That doesn't mean I can't bitch about the job market local to Fort Wayne... it is what it is.

I am concerned about America as well. I feel like too many people are being given the short stick and I attribute it to a small section of society at the "top" being greedy. I think we need real reform in Washington (and I shouldn't need to capitalize or bold that word "real" to get my point across) because it's so pathetically obvious that most politicians learn the game and become worthless sacks of chit after only a short time in office.

All I know is McCain is not the answer. Hillary will at least do something different than Bush but she will not change the tone in Washington, heck the tone in Washington will get worse. The democrats have no balls to stand up to Bush but the republicans have all kinds of balls vs. the clintons ... look at what they did 9 years ago. I believe Obama will do things differently than Bush and I honestly believe that the rancorous tone in Washington will change.

For those of you who vote republican no matter what (my grandfather, featherhead and LTRT) that is weak and cowardly. Put some thought in to it.

Bman wrote:
WTF ... who said anything about transfering 100% of the tax to the wealthy? Politics as usual by the right wing ... lie and spin. Give up spin Card, stick to DJing ...

The top 3.5% already pay almost 50% of the total income tax generated.. how much more do you want them to pay?