quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

....true, but the media get their ideas/memes from the same general pool as the rest of us. At the end of the day it's not really what ideas you come into contact with that counts or where you got them, it's how you put two or more of them together.......

Exactly. It's when one doesn't put them together, but takes someone else's expression, verbatim, and then claim "my opinion" that I'm referring to. If nothing is ever original, why is it ever necessary to cite sources?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

What fucking tactics? Are you still referring to my posting a bogus list of books on the other thread, or are you referring to the disgusting habit of calling Senator Obama by his middle name?

I know it's a habit of yours to laugh off serious things and to take trivia seriously in order to muddy the waters, so please, clarify what you are talking about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

I remember a very recent thread where you happily went along with the idea that Obama's birth certificate was fake, until it became clear to you that few others were falling for the idea... Obviously, these elections allow for quite a bit of leeway when it comes to taking distance from our personal morals. Oh well, can't be helped.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius


I hope that answers your question,
Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

Good OP subtee,
 
If you follow the conversation patterns here where and how people receive their information usually becomes pretty clear.  And what also becomes clear is whether they are willing to engage in honest debate with persons of differing viewpoints or go directly into personal attack mode because they feel threatened.
 
We all have our own experiences and ideals that shape our opinions and are most likely to search for sources that support our point of view, such is human nature.  A few people here can only repeat whatever they have recently heard and spout it as their opinion.
As we say in the entertainment industry, "they take direction well".

Peace and Light,
 
Vendaval

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

I would disagree with your pointing at one side of the political spectrum as being solely responsible for this.  I would even suggest that many of the folks around here spew forth more of the Dem talking points, without doing any fact checking, than some of the conservatives here do with Rep talking points.  With few exceptions, very few on the Dem side can discuss the issues of what their candidate is proposing, much less any details of it.

As an example, we keep hearing that Sen. Obama is going to be cutting taxes for 95% of working Americans.  Which tax brackets is he cutting?  The simple answer is not a single one.  There are NO TAX CUTS in Obama's proposals, he has proposed tax credits for everybody.  Therefore, everybody will still be paying the taxes they are now (except for those that are target for tax increases), and will only see any "relief" at filing time, when they may see the tax bill reduced because of the credit, or in many cases will actually be getting a check sent to them from money that they never paid in.

As for many of the things talked about in reference to Gov. Palin, besides the rumors and such, the only things we have to talk about in terms of her is her record, therefore the same points are brought up in varying degrees and yes in some cases as the news has reported them. 

Just my opinion,
Thadius

quote:

As far as your first point, I see the opposite.  The threads here posted by the those favoring conservative viewpoints almost invariably come from the Republican talking point of the day.  While we are all guilty of it to a certain extent, it always amuses me to watch Fox News in the morning and then see the same arguments posted here later in the day, nearly verbatim, almost as if the poster is reading from a script.

As far as your second point, I'm not sure what you are trying to say because Obama has proposed tax cuts.   Here are the comparisons:
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/.../ST2008060900950.html - 134k - Cached

Your comments about tax credits have me the most confused.  Yes, he has proposed credits, as has John McCain.
.
Ask any accountant which he would choose and you'll invariably hear credit.  A tax credit is a dollar for dollar reduction on what you owe, not a reduction in the amount you pay on.

Let's say one candidate offers a $1000 tax credit and the other offers a tax deduction in the same amount. If you take an example using some easy numbers, say a $10,000 gross income at a 10% tax rate you pay $1000. 

The $1000 deduction would reduce your adjusted gross income to $9000 and you would save $100 on your taxes.  The tax credit would apply directly to the amount you owe on your taxes meaning you have a $0 balance.

All of which I'm sure you know.  So unless I misunderstood, your argument is somewhat disingenuous. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Speaking of repeating the talking heads...

One of the right-wing radio hosts calls Barack Obama "Millhouse" because it's supposed to be so offensive to use his real middle name. And some people would like to ban talk radio altogether too, wouldn't they. They don't ask rhetorical questions about it, they try to pass laws in Congress, calling the legislation things like "The Fairness Doctrine".

quote:

We have a poster here, subrob i think it is, who routinely insists on calling Obama, 'Hussein'. Now it may be his middle name, but who gets called by their middle name?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

As far as your first point, I see the opposite.  The threads here posted by the those favoring conservative viewpoints almost invariably come from the Republican talking point of the day.  While we are all guilty of it to a certain extent, it always amuses me to watch Fox News in the morning and then see the same arguments posted here later in the day, nearly verbatim, almost as if the poster is reading from a script.

As far as your second point, I'm not sure what you are trying to say because Obama has proposed tax cuts.   Here are the comparisons:
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/.../ST2008060900950.html - 134k - Cached

Your comments about tax credits have me the most confused.  Yes, he has proposed credits, as has John McCain.
.
Ask any accountant which he would choose and you'll invariably hear credit.  A tax credit is a dollar for dollar reduction on what you owe, not a reduction in the amount you pay on.

Let's say one candidate offers a $1000 tax credit and the other offers a tax deduction in the same amount. If you take an example using some easy numbers, say a $10,000 gross income at a 10% tax rate you pay $1000. 

The $1000 deduction would reduce your adjusted gross income to $9000 and you would save $100 on your taxes.  The tax credit would apply directly to the amount you owe on your taxes meaning you have a $0 balance.

All of which I'm sure you know.  So unless I misunderstood, your argument is somewhat disingenuous. 

There is a huge difference between a tax cut and a tax credit.  With a tax cut the rate at which one is taxed is reduced, and in the case of working folks that have their taxes withheld, that means less is withheld each payday, resulting in more realized dollars each payday.  Whereas, a tax credit only applies once one files their taxes, meaning they continued to be taxed throughout the year at the higher rate and the credit does not affect AGI, it affects the total of taxes paid already (those already withheld).  Not only does it not affect taxes withheld, but those that have no taxable income after AGI is figured or any withholdings are entitled to receive a tax credit, which means that taxes collected from everybody else will be paid to folks that have paid none.  Hence the claims of redistribution of wealth.  A tax credit is a spending increase, it is not a tax cut.

I hope my simple explanation makes it clearer as to what my meaning is.  A person working for min wage, will still be taxed the same under Obama's proposal throughout the year, not at a reduced rate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

As far as your first point, I see the opposite.  The threads here posted by the those favoring conservative viewpoints almost invariably come from the Republican talking point of the day.  While we are all guilty of it to a certain extent, it always amuses me to watch Fox News in the morning and then see the same arguments posted here later in the day, nearly verbatim, almost as if the poster is reading from a script.

As far as your second point, I'm not sure what you are trying to say because Obama has proposed tax cuts.   Here are the comparisons:
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/.../ST2008060900950.html - 134k - Cached

Your comments about tax credits have me the most confused.  Yes, he has proposed credits, as has John McCain.
.
Ask any accountant which he would choose and you'll invariably hear credit.  A tax credit is a dollar for dollar reduction on what you owe, not a reduction in the amount you pay on.

Let's say one candidate offers a $1000 tax credit and the other offers a tax deduction in the same amount. If you take an example using some easy numbers, say a $10,000 gross income at a 10% tax rate you pay $1000. 

The $1000 deduction would reduce your adjusted gross income to $9000 and you would save $100 on your taxes.  The tax credit would apply directly to the amount you owe on your taxes meaning you have a $0 balance.

All of which I'm sure you know.  So unless I misunderstood, your argument is somewhat disingenuous. 

There is a huge difference between a tax cut and a tax credit.  With a tax cut the rate at which one is taxed is reduced, and in the case of working folks that have their taxes withheld, that means less is withheld each payday, resulting in more realized dollars each payday.  Whereas, a tax credit only applies once one files their taxes, meaning they continued to be taxed throughout the year at the higher rate and the credit does not affect AGI, it affects the total of taxes paid already (those already withheld).  Not only does it not affect taxes withheld, but those that have no taxable income after AGI is figured or any withholdings are entitled to receive a tax credit, which means that taxes collected from everybody else will be paid to folks that have paid none.  Hence the claims of redistribution of wealth.  A tax credit is a spending increase, it is not a tax cut.

I hope my simple explanation makes it clearer as to what my meaning is.  A person working for min wage, will still be taxed the same under Obama's proposal throughout the year, not at a reduced rate.

No, you're wrong, clearly.  I gave you an example in numbers (simplified as they were).  Give me some back.

The whole point of a credit is it does not affect adjusted gross income.  I don't know how to make it clearer than in the example I gave.  A direct comparison of tax reduction on gross income opposed to a tax credit in the same amount will always favor a credit as far as overall tax savings.

As far as more money in the paycheck each week, I think most people would accept a higher deduction in their weekly pay in exchange for an overall greater savings on a yearly basis.

I've read your comments repeatedly and I just fail to see where you justify your last statement.  How in any conceivable way does a tax credit equate to a tax increase? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

My only response is that I have answered this question.  I have stated why I am comfortable with her being a "heartbeat away" from the Presidency, and have backed it up with detail.

My views on Sarah Palin are already posted in these threads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DedicatedDom40

I dont know how this is possible.

There is less that 60 days to the election, and a governor elected by popular vote of less than 115,000 Alaskans remains a political unknown to the vast majority of 300 million people in the remaining 49 states. We know very little about this woman, and she it being kept on a very short, scripted leash by her campaign. Investigative due diligence that is essential is currently being frowned upon by the right leaning media.

You have got to be kidding me.

They are quickly approaching, if not overtaking, the Obama campaign at trying to sneak one past the electorate in the lower 48.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


I'm more astounded by how someone at the Daily KOS thinks up a new rumor or gross exaggeration about Governor Palin, posts it there, then almost immediately it  ends up living here in 'Off Topic Discussion' as a new thread, regardless of how pointless or ridiculous it is...

Forget the talking heads on TV.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

Tax credits do not affect AGI or Gross income, nor do they affect the ammount of tax that is withheld.  The only thing a tax credit affects is the bottom line of whether you have paid enough in taxes when filing.  Therefore, a tax credit is just a refund at the end of the year, it does not put any more money in somebody's pocket during the rest of the year.

What numbers do you want?  The Senator has proposed a tax credit of $500 per person in the bottom 95% of income earners.  There are no reductions in the the marginal tax rate. Period.  Too, there is still speculation that the "Bush tax cuts" would be repealed and these tax credits instituted in their place, thus there could be a tax increase on all taxpayers.

My final sentence did not say that a tax credit is a tax increase.  Simply put a tax credit is a spending program, similar to welfare.  It costs the government money as an expenditure.

Is that clearer?

No, because I've already acknowledged everything you've stated, and you've offered nothing new here. 

Bottom line is a tax credit equal to the dollar amount of a tax reduction will, as I've said before, ALWAYS yield a greater tax savings over the course of a year.  That's simple math. 

Your argument is based solely on payroll withholdings, and I ask you again, would not most people accept more withheld from their paychecks in return for a greater overall tax savings at the end of the year?

How exactly is a tax credit a spending program any more than a reduction in tax rates?  If you just reverse the example I used before, nobody is receiving welfare.  If you offer a $1000 tax credit on a $10000 income taxed at 10% the tax liability is reduced to $0.  Yes, if the credit offered is greater then it would be considered a form of redistribution of wealth, but isn't the whole tax system based  largely on that anyway?  Many people in lower income brackets already receive more than they pay in depending on their particular tax situation.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

If you are talking about people using others opinions i personally think there are no original opinions. Someone else has always had it before us.

I agree. Who said that, anyway: "there is no original thought"? Tee hee.

However, when someting is quoted, rather verbatim, isn't that disingenous to claim it as your own?

quote:

No, because I've already acknowledged everything you've stated, and you've offered nothing new here. 

Bottom line is a tax credit equal to the dollar amount of a tax reduction will, as I've said before, ALWAYS yield a greater tax savings over the course of a year.  That's simple math. 

Your argument is based solely on payroll withholdings, and I ask you again, would not most people accept more withheld from their paychecks in return for a greater overall tax savings at the end of the year?

How exactly is a tax credit a spending program any more than a reduction in tax rates?  If you just reverse the example I used before, nobody is receiving welfare.  If you offer a $1000 tax credit on a $10000 income taxed at 10% the tax liability is reduced to $0.  Yes, if the credit offered is greater then it would be considered a form of redistribution of wealth, but isn't the whole tax system based on largely on that anyway?  Many people in lower income brackets already receive more than they pay in depending on their particular tax situation.