Support NeoGAF

[Son of Godzilla]

Just got around to watching Obama's roast, and my favorite part was his derisive laugh after jabbing Giuliani, intentional or not.

The "You really had a tough primary there John" was easily the best line of the night.

 

[Fatalah]

I'm going to be a little livejournal-ish right now but does anyone else wake up every day excited that we're one day closer to November 4th? I look at my calendar several times a day to remind myself what the date is.

Right now I'm looking at my Outlook calendar and I love how weekends are like timewarps--- because the news cycle pauses. By Monday the date is magically 2 days closer to Election Day.

This weekend might be interesting though-- Palin on SNL. Possible Powell endorsement on Sunday. Big weekend.

 

[rSpooky]

The "You really had a tough primary there John" was easily the best line of the night.

My favorites were :

Spoiler

seeing the russion teahouse, I am not born in a manger-I am from krypton, barack is swahili for That one, and my middlename was given to me by someone who clearly never expected me to run for president. ( also liked th eone about hanging around with bad people-senators)

 

[blame space]

I always wondered what it would sound like if Obama said the word "pie", he'd sound even more like the Rock. Soon Obama will be saying "IF YOU SMELL WHAT BARACK IS COOKIN'"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHJhVBemBmA

 

[Dark Octave]

anything greater than 250k in profits gets a tax increase.

remember, only the amount you make above the limits gets the increase.

for instance, if the business makes 270k. 250k will have the normal tax rates, and 20k will have the 3% increases.

Oh ok. That makes perfect sense. I thought they were "extra" taxing the whole yearly income of $250k. So if I made $251k, only that $1k I made over $250 would get en extra 3% tax increase. I'm all for that.

Thanks for breaking it down.

And like CharlieDigital said, if he's got it, why not give a little extra back to help those who don't have it. It won't kill him, but it literally may kill someone who needs it and can't get it otherwise.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

anything greater than 250k in profits gets a tax increase.

remember, only the amount you make above the limits gets the increase.

for instance, if the business makes 270k. 250k will have the normal tax rates, and 20k will have the 3% increases.

Under Obama's plan, that would be a $3,275 increase in taxes.

 

[mckmas8808]

My wingnut coworkers are now convinced that "Joe the Plumber" got McCain back in this race, and Obama is now unelectable.

These guys are retards.

They also dont seem to think that the fact that everything about Joe the Plumbers story is a lie affects anything.

Of course, they also believe that Obama is racist against white people, is going to increase all of our taxes (despite the fact that all of our salaries would have to double to hit 250K), they are convinced we are all going to get paycuts because the CEO's are going to take more money to make up for lost taxes, and all kinds of other random crap.

So did you guys get big raises when Bush cut taxes for the CEOs?

 

[scorcho]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/237934.php

Oh noes?! You mean the GOP has to try a different way to disenfranchise poor and minority voters?

 

[CharlieDigital]

On the issue of the 42K, it's really a very complicated question since the 42K is, in a sense, a very abstract number. We don't know how an individual arrived at the 42K number since we can't take into account all possible deductions that an individual could have taken against their income. As a personal anecdote: my taxable income was $27,000 less than my total income for 2007.

But in any case, take the following example: if a person makes $42K in adjusted gross income (after all deductions), if the cutoff for the bracket is at $41,500 and the tax cut is repealed, thus effectively raising taxes by 3%, it would only affect earnings above $41,500.

The effect would be a whopping $15 or (42,000-41,500) * .03

Now yes, this is, in essence, a tax raise, but the question that you have to ask yourself is whether it's justified in this time where our debt is out of control. There is no way to cut debt without government investment (I know, this creates debt in itself, but that's why it's not called an investment for nothing) and tax contributions by citizens. If you believe that the only way to make a dent into our national debt is to give more tax cuts to the highest brackets (the so called "Trickle Down" school of thought), then you should vote McCain (if you're only voting based on tax policy).

As I've posted previously, it helps to check out: http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

The wiki page on tax brackets is also informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket

Absolutely, but even the slightest dollar increase can't be spun as a good thing for that individual. I have difficulty defending deductions, because ideologically I feel that they are one of the big problems in our current mess of a tax system.

Well, as I said with taxes, deductions are a complicated beast. They can be an effective tool to spur spending (ends up generating tax revenue somewhere) and investment. I don't disagree that the current system is complicated, but I wonder how much of it is necessary evil.

 

[Clevinger]

538 makes fun of Drudge:

Bad Spin Watch: Drudge Touts Weeks-Old, Web-Based Poll

For his latest trick, Matt Drudge is touting the results of an AP-Yahoo poll that shows a two-point race between Obama and McCain.

You may never have heard of the AP-Yahoo poll before. This is for good reason, since a look at the fine print reveals that it's not really intended for its horse race numbers (the AP uses a separate agency, GfK, for those).

For one thing, the poll is not timely. It entered the field on October 3 -- two weeks ago -- and left the field on October 13, which was this Monday.

For another thing, it's an internet-based poll:

The survey was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanelSM, a probability-based Panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone to participate in the webenabled KnowledgePanelSM. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, Knowledge Networks provides at no cost an Internet appliance and Internet service connection. People who already have computers and Internet service are permitted to participate using their own equipment. Panelists then receive unique log-in information for accessing surveys online, and then are sent emails three to four times a month inviting them to participate in research.

For a third thing, it has no likely voter screen, and the horse race question does not even appear to have a registered voter screen ... it's a poll of all adults.

Go, Drudge! Go!

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/bad-spin-watch-drudge-touts-weeks-old.html

 

[mckmas8808]

That's because it's not about Joe, but what Obama said "Spread the wealth".

Don't we already spread the wealth now? What do all of these REPs think when we give bucket loads of money to Isreal? Do they not know that more whites are on welfare and use food stamps?

Do they think use spending billions in Africa isn't already spreading the wealth?

 

[Dark Octave]

Under Obama's plan, that would be a $3,275 increase in taxes.

$3,275 is chump change to someone who is making $270,000.

:lol What's that, one less spa treatment for their dog?

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

$3,275 is chump change to someone who is making $270,000.

:lol What's that, one less spa treatment for their dog?

That's also what CharlieDigital said in the PM I sent him. I thought it was too much, then realized it wasn't. :lol

 

[Particle Physicist]

Under Obama's plan, that would be a $3,275 increase in taxes.

no it wouldnt. check your math.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

Under Obama's plan, that would be a $3,275 increase in taxes.

I got $600 from the info here. Am I missing something?

 

[Tyrone Slothrop]

president obama: the socialist terrorist

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

I don't speak wingnut but if I had to guess I'd say Democrat/Liberal/Socialist/Communist...

ah. probably.
maybe you can get a second job as a wingnut -> English translator?

 

[JayDubya]

Don't we already spread the wealth now?

In plenty of dumb ways that we need to stop.

What do all of these REPs think when we give bucket loads of money to Isreal?

I'd agree with you, but that's a bipartisan problem and don't pretend it isn't. Can't be seen as "anti-Israel" if you don't want powerful lobbies against you and a very large network of possible campaign contributions to dry up like that. Nevermind that "not wanting to give Israel free shit" isn't truly anti-Israel.

Do they not know that more whites are on welfare and use food stamps?

You assume opposition to welfare is racially based. That's interesting projection and in some isolated cases it may be true, but the principle is race neutral.

Do they think use spending billions in Africa isn't already spreading the wealth?

Absolutely, we waste billions of dollars on Africa on foreign aid, annually - money we don't have, as evidenced by our ever growing national debt.

When I say George Bush is too far left, this, Medicare expansion, and this awful bail-out are all the evidence I need. He's personally responsible for vastly expanding American foreign aid, including yes, tripling aid to Africa, and damn him for it.

 

[speculawyer]

So did you guys get big raises when Bush cut taxes for the CEOs?

*ZING*!

 

[Particle Physicist]

I got $600 from the info here. Am I missing something?

you are correct. its a $600 increase. i have no idea where he got the 3275 number from..

 

[Hitokage]

*ZING*!

Moreover, it's truly amazing how they won't be generous in giving up more of their money, but automatically assume that their bosses will.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

164,550 income, 33% marginal rate:

270,000-164,550= 105,450

105,450 x .33= 34,798

Isn't that the current average tax rate?

Now if we bump .33 to .36

105,450x .36= 37,962

37,962-34,798= 3,164 increase in taxes?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

 

[Hitokage]

270,000-164,550= 105,450

105,450 x .33= 34,798

Isn't that the current average tax rate?

Now if we bump .33 to .36

105,450x .36= 37,962

37,962-34,798= 3,164 increase in taxes?

If those numbers were taxable income after deductions, sure.

 

[CharlieDigital]

164,550 income, 33% marginal rate:

270,000-164,550= 105,450

105,450 x .33= 34,798

Isn't that the current average tax rate?

Now if we bump .33 to .36

105,450x .36= 37,962

37,962-34,798= 3,164 increase in taxes?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Your numbers are based on the current tax brackets. I think they're using Obama's proposed bracket changes.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

If those numbers were taxable income after deductions, sure.

So that number is before deductions?

 

[mckmas8808]

Gallup

O 50
M 43


+1 from yesterday for Obama.

So does this mean Obama is now about to win in a landslide again?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Moreover, it's truly amazing how they won't be generous in giving up more of their money, but automatically assume that their bosses will.

You guys can make these points all you want, but when I go in for my year end performance review, and don't get the raise and bonus I was expecting, I'll know who to blame: Barack Obama and his liberal cronies in Congress.

Now, some might argue that this will be irrational since he will not have even been sworn in yet, but I'll know to trust that this is valid considering what is GOING to happen. My boss will have wanted to give me the money I deserve, but he will know that he needs to save his money for the impending Obamageddon, and the undeniable harm it's going to cause on small businesses.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I hope to God I can talk to Obama tomorrow about my small business taxes.

"So Barack, you are going to give me a credit for the healthcare I provide for my employees, reduce the amount of payroll taxes I pay for each worker, AND give me a tax break on my personal taxes?"

Deal.

 

[maynerd]

So does this mean Obama is now about to win in a landslide again?

No it means... 'Why can't obama close the deal?'

 

[Particle Physicist]

Your numbers are based on the current tax brackets. I think they're using Obama's proposed bracket changes.

yeah. thats what im doing. why would i calculate it otherwise? obama wouldnt be taxing 105,450 at .36 under his tax brackets.

 

[bob_arctor]

Moreover, it's truly amazing how they won't be generous in giving up more of their money, but automatically assume that their bosses will.

I think I've ceased being amazed at people's general assholishness to be honest. It's just how we are.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Your numbers are based on the current tax brackets. I think they're using Obama's proposed bracket changes.

I thought Obama would increase the marginal tax rate from 33% to 36% for those single filers that make over $250,000? If not and we bump it to 39%, then that increases the number to $6,327, but before deductions, right?

 

[The Lamonster]

Setting up the stage for Obama's upcoming Saturday rally underneath the St. Louis Arch!!

Any St. Louis Gaffers want to meet up afterwards, grab a beer?

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

yeah. thats what im doing. why would i calculate it otherwise? obama wouldnt be taxing 105,450 at .36 under his tax brackets.

Because the tax bracket for (marginal) 33% is over $164550 but not over $357,700, that's why. You subtract $270,000 from 164,550 and the number you get you multiply that by 33%. That's what you pay in taxes.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

164,550 income, 33% marginal rate:

270,000-164,550= 105,450

105,450 x .33= 34,798

Isn't that the current average tax rate?

Now if we bump .33 to .36

105,450x .36= 37,962

37,962-34,798= 3,164 increase in taxes?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Your math is correct, but we were talking about over 250K going up 3% for businesses. It looks like your looking at filing as single.

However, I think the business number was actually like 4.5%, but I'd have to look it up.

 

[Arde5643]

Oh ok. That makes perfect sense. I thought they were "extra" taxing the whole yearly income of $250k. So if I made $251k, only that $1k I made over $250 would get en extra 3% tax increase. I'm all for that.

Thanks for breaking it down.

And like CharlieDigital said, if he's got it, why not give a little extra back to help those who don't have it. It won't kill him, but it literally may kill someone who needs it and can't get it otherwise.

The other thing is, and something that Obama should have pointed out - if your small business actually makes about $250k+ in profits, it would most likely be a multimillion dollar business.

And there's hardly anything middle class about that.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Your math is correct, but we were talking about over 250K going up 3% for businesses. It looks like your looking at filing as single.

However, I think the business number was actually like 4.5%, but I'd have to look it up.

So you don't use the single filer marginal tax rate when talking about taxing small businesses?

 

[LiveWire]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHJhVBemBmA

That's awesome.

 

[Cheebs]

The clip of that girl calling David Gergen hot on CNN is on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOqS97uVII8

 

[GhaleonEB]

Nate on the suspicious betting taking place at InTrade:

A few weeks later...

Trader drove up price of McCain stock
:lol

Awesome. I'm amazed at how Nate's observations can lead to stuff like this. Another example is when he tore into the age weightings in the Battleground daily tracker, and a few days later they fixed them.

Also: aggregate of today's tracking polls show almost no change (0.1%).

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/tpm_track_composite_obamas_lea_1.php

 

[CharlieDigital]

Absolutely, but even the slightest dollar increase can't be spun as a good thing for that individual.

I want to add a thought to this: all government spending is not bad and government spending is not inherently bad. I'm not saying that the government doesn't get it wrong from time to time, but our country would not be where it is today without sufficient government investment in infrastructure and technology.

Look, without government spending, we would not have a functioning economy, period. Take something as simple as the Internet, which we take for granted these days. It could not exist in its current form without the early investment into ARPANet. Take nuclear power; it could not exist in its current form had the US government not advanced the study of atomic reactions in building the atom bomb. Take that Costco that you shop at; it could not function without a functional interstate highway system (or the Internet to manage inventory, government satellites to track shipping via GPS, etc).

Higher taxes can be spun as a "good thing" if you can make the case that the investment will pay dividends either directly via the generation of tax revenue or indirectly, for example, via a healthy and thus more productive workforce. The whole "government taking my money!" argument is somewhat of a bogeyman. In a sense, you could not have the job that you have or the success that you have at your job without some form of government spending.

Sure, excessive government spending, bureaucracy, waste, and other shit like that happens (god knows it's happening in Iraq with the no-bid contracts and the "disappearance" of boatloads of cash), but this is why elections are so important: we need to elect people who are responsible and intelligent -- at all levels of government -- to maximize the usage of our tax dollars. This whole notion of McCain's across the board spending freeze is ridiculous. In the investment world, it's a well known idiom that you can't make money without money. In this case, the investment is in the health of the workforce, proper education for the workers of the future, fixing and building new basic infrastructure like roads, railways, and bridges, etc.

The core difference between folks like Jay (and maybe your dad and yourself) and someone like me is that I believe that private corporations and the free market cannot be entrusted with these types of basic investments; I tend to have faith that if the right people are in power and if there is enough transparency, government can be a responsible steward of our tax dollars, working to maximize them by investing in the types of things which may not net immediate financial benefits, but have the potential to shape the future of the country in a positive way.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

So you don't use the single filer marginal tax rate when talking about taxing small businesses?

The way they talk about it, I always thought it was a separate filer. If not, then...um...nevermind.

 

[bob_arctor]

McCain talking now at some rally. Still lying about Obama raising taxes. Now here comes the chanting. And look! A black lady in the audience!! Joe Lieberman is standing next to McCain clapping away. "I won't raise taxes on small businesses!" "I won't meet unconditionally with the Castro brothers!"

"I won't do anything at all that my opponent does!! I've even given up wiping my ass after taking a dump!!!"

*USA!USA!USA!USA!USA!USA!USA!*

 

[SecretDestroyer]

Setting up the stage for Obama's upcoming Saturday rally underneath the St. Louis Arch!!

Any St. Louis Gaffers want to meet up afterwards, grab a beer?

I'm excited, this will be my first Obama rally!

 

[Iksenpets]

What's the deal with the whole "Obama's really going to raise taxes on anyone who makes over $42K"?

My father is staying with us and he started this talking point. I've heard rumblings, but never the whole story. Did he vote on lower middle class tax hikes in the past or so meting?

He voted for some procedural law about taxes that McCain claimed in the first debate would raise taxes on people making 42K. McCain voted for it as well, though, and both Obama and all of the media say McCain's accusations weren't correct. That was where the whole "even Fox News said your attacks were wrong" ting camefrom in the last debate.

EDIT: Oops, didn't notice that question was two pages ago. Oh well.

 

[Stoney Mason]

I want to add a thought to this: all government spending is not bad and government spending is not inherently bad. I'm not saying that the government doesn't get it wrong from time to time, but our country would not be where it is today without sufficient government investment in infrastructure and technology.

Look, without government spending, we would not have a functioning economy, period. Take something as simple as the Internet, which we take for granted these days. It could not exist in its current form without the early investment into ARPANet. Take nuclear power; it could not exist in its current form had the US government not advanced the study of atomic reactions in building the atom bomb. Take that Costco that you shop at; it could not function without a functional interstate highway system (or the Internet to manage inventory, government satellites to track shipping via GPS, etc).

Higher taxes can be spun as a "good thing" if you can make the case that the investment will pay dividends either directly via the generation of tax revenue or indirectly, for example, via a healthy and thus more productive workforce. The whole "government taking my money!" argument is somewhat of a bogeyman. In a sense, you could not have the job that you have or the success that you have at your job without some form of government spending.

Sure, excessive government spending, bureaucracy, waste, and other shit like that happens (god knows it's happening in Iraq with the no-bid contracts and the "disappearance" of boatloads of cash), but this is why elections are so important: we need to elect people who are responsible and intelligent -- at all levels of government -- to maximize the usage of our tax dollars. This whole notion of McCain's across the board spending freeze is ridiculous. In the investment world, it's a well known idiom that you can't make money without money. In this case, the investment is in the health of the workforce, proper education for the workers of the future, fixing and building new basic infrastructure like roads, railways, and bridges, etc.

The core difference between folks like Jay (and maybe your dad and yourself) and someone like me is that I believe that private corporations and the free market cannot be entrusted with these types of basic investments; I tend to have faith that if the right people are in power and if there is enough transparency, government can be a responsible steward of our tax dollars, working to maximize them by investing in the types of things which may not net immediate financial benefits, but have the potential to shape the future of the country in a positive way.

Let's face it when Republicans talk about government spending they are talking about anything that could actually help people. The only reason they don't put up an aggresive fight against things like universal education and social security or hell even mail is that they failed to effectively demonize those issues. Anything else is godless socialism.

 

[JayDubya]

The core difference between folks like Jay (and maybe your dad and yourself) and someone like me is that I believe that private corporations and the free market cannot be entrusted with these types of basic investments; I tend to have faith that if the right people are in power and if there is enough transparency, government can be a responsible steward of our tax dollars, working to maximize them by investing in the types of things which may not net immediate financial benefits, but have the potential to shape the future of the country in a positive way.

Agreed, there is a core difference. I believe that government cannot be entrusted with these types of investments, government erodes transparency because it abhors it, and the notion of government as responsible steward is a risible notion with no precedent.

 

[Zoe]

Random, but does anybody have a picture of Joe Biden giving a thumb's up?

 

[Flo_Evans]

Setting up the stage for Obama's upcoming Saturday rally underneath the St. Louis Arch!!

Any St. Louis Gaffers want to meet up afterwards, grab a beer?

Have you picked a place? The landing is close, but I hate all the bars on the landing. :lol

The Side Bar or the Dubliner on Washington ave. would be my choice, but they are a bit far from the arch.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

I want to add a thought to this: all government spending is not bad and government spending is not inherently bad. I'm not saying that the government doesn't get it wrong from time to time, but our country would not be where it is today without sufficient government investment in infrastructure and technology.

Look, without government spending, we would not have a functioning economy, period. Take something as simple as the Internet, which we take for granted these days. It could not exist in its current form without the early investment into ARPANet. Take nuclear power; it could not exist in its current form had the US government not advanced the study of atomic reactions in building the atom bomb. Take that Costco that you shop at; it could not function without a functional interstate highway system (or the Internet to manage inventory, government satellites to track shipping via GPS, etc).

Higher taxes can be spun as a "good thing" if you can make the case that the investment will pay dividends either directly via the generation of tax revenue or indirectly, for example, via a healthy and thus more productive workforce. The whole "government taking my money!" argument is somewhat of a bogeyman. In a sense, you could not have the job that you have or the success that you have at your job without some form of government spending.

Sure, excessive government spending, bureaucracy, waste, and other shit like that happens (god knows it's happening in Iraq with the no-bid contracts and the "disappearance" of boatloads of cash), but this is why elections are so important: we need to elect people who are responsible and intelligent -- at all levels of government -- to maximize the usage of our tax dollars. This whole notion of McCain's across the board spending freeze is ridiculous. In the investment world, it's a well known idiom that you can't make money without money. In this case, the investment is in the health of the workforce, proper education for the workers of the future, fixing and building new basic infrastructure like roads, railways, and bridges, etc.

The core difference between folks like Jay (and maybe your dad and yourself) and someone like me is that I believe that private corporations and the free market cannot be entrusted with these types of basic investments; I tend to have faith that if the right people are in power and if there is enough transparency, government can be a responsible steward of our tax dollars, working to maximize them by investing in the types of things which may not net immediate financial benefits, but have the potential to shape the future of the country in a positive way.

I agree with all of that; unfortunately, I don't have faith that the current system allows the right people to be in power.

Also, most of those things you mention were derivatives from defense spending, something that even Jay would probably agree is one place where the federal government should step up to the plate.