As I left work today with one of my co-workers watching CNN and getting all worked up over a "lipstick on a pig" comment, I thought to myself....were people really acting this immature 4 years ago when it was Kerry/Bush. I don't think I've ever seen so many irrelevant issues come up and people just getting themselves worked up in a dander about them. Then you look at this forum and many others (i.e. Yahoo answers) and it's like a bunch of 5 year olds yelling insults at each other. Like you, I've had it with all the nonsense. I'm through watching all the insanity and am looking forward to election day being over so I don't have to listen to any more of this petty bickering. My mind is already made up as there's nothing either candidate could really say at this point to switch me over so why bicker about it. I looked at both candidates when they had won their respective parties months ago and called it a clean slate for both of them at that point. I listened to the promises and the flip flopping (mostly Obama) since that time and focused on the most important things to me....the economy (namely taxes) and the energy policy (again I believe in McCain's stance, and this was another flip flop on Obama). None of the other issues are remotely close to those two so I don't let them cloud my judgement (even though admitedly I'm bother as a African American male on Obama's stance on Affirmative Action...just plain stupid). I don't care about lipstick on a pig, a pregnant daughter or whatever other National Enquirer type headline the media can think up. The most important comparison on taxes I found was the Brookings Institute (tax policy center). It cleared up any confusion I had on who was really helping the middle class. At $112,000 of annual income for a family, you will pay less taxes under McCain then Obama and that said it all for me (that would be considered barely making it in San Francisco). I also don't think we bankrupt the nation while we find alternative energy (McCain original stance of drilling off shore which Obama joined in on when gas was a high of $4.50). My gut feeling is Obama changes his mind depending on the way the wind blows and I could never vote for someone the doesn't stand behind his beliefs with conviction. I'll be voting Republican for the first time ever for president and am happy about it.
vote 3rd party or dont vote, your vote is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. also remember it might not be a bad idea if a candidate continues to change there ideas and stances to fit in line with the countries beliefs instead of just his own. after all, the president is working for the people or supposedly so.
At $112,000 the difference between the candidates tax proposals is about $410 a year. I don't think most people would consider making $112,000 a year as being middle class.
For those making less than $112,000 a year, they would pay less taxes under the Obama plan than the McCain plan. The difference for those making between $66,000 and $112,000 is about $280. While the difference between those making between $38,000 and $66,000 is around $720 a year in favor of Obama's plan.
I find it hard to believe anyone could conclude that McCain's tax plan is the one that's really helping the middle class. Perhaps the Bay area is a different standard (perhaps not). If it is, the income levels are not in line with the majority of the country.
Reply to gtc:
I agree that in California, my vote is probably meaningless so it's really who I'm rooting for. California hasn't had a Republican win since 1988 and I doubt McCain will even campaign here for that reason. A vote for a third party would be ridiculous though as no 3rd party would have any chance of winning. My issue with the flip flopping is that the reason for it isn't that there's been some new information that's came out that changed Obama's way of looking at either energy or the economy. The reason in each instance is that he's lost ground on the polls, so he picks something that is more popular. The latest of which is the delaying of rescinding the Bush tax cuts. When someone does this and you are in the process of making a voting decision, it makes it difficult as you don't have confidence in the person to do what he says he will do. And again, I'm simply just taking this from the time they were both clear cut winners for their respective parties (that's not that long of a period).
Reply to cut across shortly:
Here's you breakdown in SF (and keep in mind, there are certainly other areas of the country that are similar.... i.e. New York area, Boston, Hawaii...I imagine most of the coastal cities)
Typical Mortgage - $3000/month
Property Tax - $4k to $10k/year
Insurance (car & property) - $2k (might be low)
Utilities - $300/month
Food - $750-$1k/month
Gas - $200-$350/month
Car Maintenance & Car Payment - $400/month?
This isn't even getting into educational expenses or clothing (the above total is already around $75k). That also doesn't touch upon the capital gains (28%) or dividend tax (39%). Also property value are much higher in the areas I mention so Obama's estate tax will have an impact too. I am clearly no better than middle class here in San Francisco and definitely feel the pinch (I'm paying college tuition for 2 kids right now). By these standards, a family earning $112k will be hurting in this city.
If Obama, at the very least would have proposed different tax structures based on cost of living for a given area, that would have made much more sense to me. But blanketing his tax proposal essentially screws people in coastal cities. This is why AMT is such a major issue in the areas I mentioned. Thankfully, my wife and I bring in more than $112k, but again...are clearly middle class. I estimate my family will pay approximately $15k more in the next 4 years under Obama's plan. Keep in mind that Obama is also proposing to give a form of a rebate to people with low income, which is essentially a redistribution of wealth or dare I say socialism. I really don't need a President that thinks he's Robin Hood. I simply need a tax system that treats the middle class in Cleveland like the middle class in San Francisco.
I agree that in California, my vote is probably meaningless so it's really who I'm rooting for. California hasn't had a Republican win since 1988 and I doubt McCain will even campaign here for that reason. A vote for a third party would be ridiculous though as no 3rd party would have any chance of winning. My issue with the flip flopping is that the reason for it isn't that there's been some new information that's came out that changed Obama's way of looking at either energy or the economy. The reason in each instance is that he's lost ground on the polls, so he picks something that is more popular. The latest of which is the delaying of rescinding the Bush tax cuts. When someone does this and you are in the process of making a voting decision, it makes it difficult as you don't have confidence in the person to do what he says he will do. And again, I'm simply just taking this from the time they were both clear cut winners for their respective parties (that's not that long of a period).
Reply to cut across shortly:
Here's you breakdown in SF (and keep in mind, there are certainly other areas of the country that are similar.... i.e. New York area, Boston, Hawaii...I imagine most of the coastal cities)
Typical Mortgage - $3000/month
Property Tax - $4k to $10k/year
Insurance (car & property) - $2k (might be low)
Utilities - $300/month
Food - $750-$1k/month
Gas - $200-$350/month
Car Maintenance & Car Payment - $400/month?
This isn't even getting into educational expenses or clothing (the above total is already around $75k). That also doesn't touch upon the capital gains (28%) or dividend tax (39%). Also property value are much higher in the areas I mention so Obama's estate tax will have an impact too. I am clearly no better than middle class here in San Francisco and definitely feel the pinch (I'm paying college tuition for 2 kids right now). By these standards, a family earning $112k will be hurting in this city.
If Obama, at the very least would have proposed different tax structures based on cost of living for a given area, that would have made much more sense to me. But blanketing his tax proposal essentially screws people in coastal cities. This is why AMT is such a major issue in the areas I mentioned. Thankfully, my wife and I bring in more than $112k, but again...are clearly middle class. I estimate my family will pay approximately $15k more in the next 4 years under Obama's plan. Keep in mind that Obama is also proposing to give a form of a rebate to people with low income, which is essentially a redistribution of wealth or dare I say socialism. I really don't need a President that thinks he's Robin Hood. I simply need a tax system that treats the middle class in Cleveland like the middle class in San Francisco.
If taking in over $112,000 a year is middle class, what class are those that take in around $50,000 to $100,000 a year? If the answer is "middle class", then I think it's difficult to believe that McCain's plan favors the middle class.
If the answer is "lower class", I think your just simply out of your mind or worse (intentionally dishonest).
Like I said, if a family of 4 is taking in $50k to $100k in this city, welcome to poverty (especially if you're closer to the $50k range). You are not in the middle class here, or the other cities I mentioned. I'm not sure how else I can describe it to you since I broke down typical expenses in the area. Feel free to come and visit our beautiful city and I'll take you out to dinner so you can see how expensive our restaurants are also (can't pay for your trip here but I'm serious on the dinner offer). Take a trip to New York if you get a chance. You'll get what I'm saying real quick. Neither plan is designed to take into cost of living in a given area, so to me the logical choice (if the economy is a big criteria for a person on who he elects for President) is to pay as little as they can for taxes. That would be McCain in my case.
Putting aside the fact that I live 5 miles from Fenway Park and am in NYC several times a year, the fact is for most people in the middle class (making under $112K/yr), the McCain plan is less beneficial.
These were your words:
and you concluded that it was McCain.
It may be better in your case, but to claim McCain's plan is the one that offers more help to the middle class is wrong (at the very least it's debatable).
It depends on where you live - in Boston, a poor family earns under 40 K while a two wage middle cvlass family of semi-skilled workers could pull down 120k or so.
The House I live in on the South Shore is worth about 450k - it would easily be worth 700k in Boston and 300k in Providence.
It all depends on where you live.
Your whole post is so full of downright wrongs. MY god where did you come up with that at 112000 you will be paying more taxes under Obama? It sounds like you are listening to Fox news to much. Are you aware of all the McCain flip flops? To say Obama has more is flat out wrong. Hell even MCCains own imagration bill , McCain says he wouldn't even vote for it. Its his own bill for goodness sakes. Good lord how in the world could you be this misinformed? Here is the tax plan which was on CNN last night. Its a simple you tube video with both guys cuts. It couldn't be more simple to watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtJ95Raif9E
Reply to Thor:
<table class="sidebarTBLtable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="sidebarTBLheadline">BREAKING DOWN THE NUMBERS</td> </tr> <tr><td class="sidebarTBLsubhead">Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place.</td></tr> <tr> <td class="cnnTMcontent"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr class="sidebarTBLheader"> <th class="cc11" align="left">
</th> <th class="cc11" align="left">MCCAIN</th> <th class="cc11" align="left">OBAMA</th> </tr> <tr class="cnnIERowAltBG"> <td class="cc10" align="left">Income</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">Avg. tax bill</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">Avg. tax bill</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="cc10" align="left">Over $2.9M</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$269,364</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">+$701,885</td> </tr> <tr class="cnnIERowAltBG"> <td class="cc10" align="left">$603K and up</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$45,361</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">+$115,974</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="cc10" align="left">$227K-$603K</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$7,871</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">+$12</td> </tr> <tr class="cnnIERowAltBG"> <td class="cc10" align="left">$161K-$227K</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$4,380</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$2,789</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="cc10" align="left">$112K-$161K</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$2,614</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$2,204</td> </tr> <tr class="cnnIERowAltBG"> <td class="cc10" align="left">$66K-$112K</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$1,009</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$1,290</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="cc10" align="left">$38K-$66K</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$319</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$1,042</td> </tr> <tr class="cnnIERowAltBG"> <td class="cc10" align="left">$19K-$38K</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$113</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$892</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="cc10" align="left">Under $19K</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$19</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$567</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> Source:The Tax Policy Center
Just google it Thor or go to the Brooking Institute (they actually lean to the left so it should be a credible source for you). I'm not talking about an immigration bill, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
Reply to shorty
In my first post I gave you specific high cost areas and mentioned coastal cities like SF, NY, Boston, and Oahu. My brother lives in NY and I am very well versed on what it takes to live there. It's very easy to figure out for anyone that wants to do the research. Right now the median home price is at $481,000 (down from $510,000)...I googled this info...you can do that too. Using a mortgage calculator (again, easy to find on-line), with an "A" credit rating, you'd be looking at 5.79% (bankrate.com) which will put your mortgage payment at $2800. Obviously if you have any dings at all on your credit, you're over $3k. With a 1.76% property tax rate (again, just google this if you don't believe me) you pay $8466 per year in property taxes (hmmm....looks like NY is real close to all the estimates I already gave you). We pay slightly over 1% in our area of San Francisco. All the rest of my estimates are clearly in line (I didn't overestimate anything). As mentioned, I didn't throw in educational costs, clothes, medical, and I'm sure there are some other things we could add to that. And to quote my exact words...
blanketing his tax proposal essentially screws people in coastal cities.
At $112,000 of annual income for a family, you will pay less taxes under McCain then Obama and that said it all for me (that would be considered barely making it in San Francisco)
Now if you can show me somewhere that I said it screws the middle class across the country....please do. All of my comments are very objective and can be supported. They are based on higher cost of living areas. I said nothing that wasn't true in my statements. As has been mentioned by many on this board (bblight did in this thread). When you use the term "middle class", it completely depends on where you live and the cost-of-living in that area. If you can show me and this board that any of my estimates are sensationalized, I invite you to do it.
<table class="sidebarTBLtable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="sidebarTBLheadline">BREAKING DOWN THE NUMBERS</td> </tr> <tr><td class="sidebarTBLsubhead">Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place.</td></tr> <tr> <td class="cnnTMcontent"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr class="sidebarTBLheader"> <th class="cc11" align="left">
</th> <th class="cc11" align="left">MCCAIN</th> <th class="cc11" align="left">OBAMA</th> </tr> <tr class="cnnIERowAltBG"> <td class="cc10" align="left">Income</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">Avg. tax bill</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">Avg. tax bill</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="cc10" align="left">Over $2.9M</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$269,364</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">+$701,885</td> </tr> <tr class="cnnIERowAltBG"> <td class="cc10" align="left">$603K and up</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$45,361</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">+$115,974</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="cc10" align="left">$227K-$603K</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$7,871</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">+$12</td> </tr> <tr class="cnnIERowAltBG"> <td class="cc10" align="left">$161K-$227K</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$4,380</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$2,789</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="cc10" align="left">$112K-$161K</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$2,614</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$2,204</td> </tr> <tr class="cnnIERowAltBG"> <td class="cc10" align="left">$66K-$112K</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$1,009</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$1,290</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="cc10" align="left">$38K-$66K</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$319</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$1,042</td> </tr> <tr class="cnnIERowAltBG"> <td class="cc10" align="left">$19K-$38K</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$113</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$892</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="cc10" align="left">Under $19K</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$19</td> <td class="cc10" align="left">-$567</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> Source:The Tax Policy Center
Just google it Thor or go to the Brooking Institute (they actually lean to the left so it should be a credible source for you). I'm not talking about an immigration bill, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
Reply to shorty
In my first post I gave you specific high cost areas and mentioned coastal cities like SF, NY, Boston, and Oahu. My brother lives in NY and I am very well versed on what it takes to live there. It's very easy to figure out for anyone that wants to do the research. Right now the median home price is at $481,000 (down from $510,000)...I googled this info...you can do that too. Using a mortgage calculator (again, easy to find on-line), with an "A" credit rating, you'd be looking at 5.79% (bankrate.com) which will put your mortgage payment at $2800. Obviously if you have any dings at all on your credit, you're over $3k. With a 1.76% property tax rate (again, just google this if you don't believe me) you pay $8466 per year in property taxes (hmmm....looks like NY is real close to all the estimates I already gave you). We pay slightly over 1% in our area of San Francisco. All the rest of my estimates are clearly in line (I didn't overestimate anything). As mentioned, I didn't throw in educational costs, clothes, medical, and I'm sure there are some other things we could add to that. And to quote my exact words...
blanketing his tax proposal essentially screws people in coastal cities.
At $112,000 of annual income for a family, you will pay less taxes under McCain then Obama and that said it all for me (that would be considered barely making it in San Francisco)
Now if you can show me somewhere that I said it screws the middle class across the country....please do. All of my comments are very objective and can be supported. They are based on higher cost of living areas. I said nothing that wasn't true in my statements. As has been mentioned by many on this board (bblight did in this thread). When you use the term "middle class", it completely depends on where you live and the cost-of-living in that area. If you can show me and this board that any of my estimates are sensationalized, I invite you to do it.
Last edited:
As far as I'm aware, Federal tax rates (both past and present) never accounted for the cost of living in any particular location.
I take exception to your claim that McCain's plan is the one that's looking out for the middle class. You have to look at it as a whole and not just isolote areas that are the more expensive to live in and have higher wages.
Regarding the chart that breaks down federal tax savings (or increases) by income, both are going to give tax cuts for those making between $112K and $161K (each are offering over $2K/yr less in taxes). McCain's go a little further (by about $410/yr). For those making under $112K/yr, Obama's go a little further (either by around $280 or $720/yr). I think it can be argued, in terms of the nation as a whole , that Obama's plan helps the middle class more than McCain's.
One comment you made that seems to be sensationalized is that under Obama's plan, you estimate that you will pay $15K more in federal income tax in the next 4 years than McCain's plan. The difference in the plans for that income level is about $410 a year. There may be a legitimate reason for your estimate of 15K in 4 years. However, I don't see it.
You sort of messed up the stuff I want quote.
First of all, this isn't about who anyone should vote for. I'm concentrating primarily on your statement the one candidate "was really helping the middle class". I think there's ample evidence to contradict your conclusions.
I think it's fair to say that you've determined how the tax structure's effect you. If you're going to make a statement as to which candidate "was really helping the middle class", you have to include the middle class of the nation as a whole. I know you've only been talking about isolated high income areas.
I believe that is a flawed premise when determining which candidate "was really helping the middle class".
I think it's hilarious how you can take what my original statement was and twist it the way you'd like it to read. Sorry, that's not the way this works. I have a viewpoint, you have a viewpoint. It's about respecting others viewpoints whether you agree with it or not. My viewpoint is that Obama doesn't help me a bit and since I'm in the middle class in San Francisco, I'm going to vote for the candidate that will benefit me the most based on my criteria for President. And you'll do the same. No I don't have to include how each candidate will help the nation as a whole because that has nothing to do with me and my original statement has nothing to do with that (and I'm sure they'll be plenty of people in high cost of living areas that will feel the same...and California and New York State are massive areas, even if they're not the majority). All along I have been very clear on my comments and specifically what I was referring to and you apparently have a problem accepting that, so you continuously try to twist them to fit your criteria. You started off not accepting how anyone could possibly consider themselves middle class with a family income of $112,000. Your exact comment....
I don't think most people would consider making $112,000 a year as being middle class.
Which tells me you have no consideration for anyone living in a high cost of living area. You simply have this blanket dollar amount in your head that should apply to everyone in the country (which clearly is wrong). Whereas I am perfectly aware that there is a large percentage of the country that will want to vote for him because it helps them personally (notice the word personally) because they live in a lower cost of living area. My comment stating "I simply need a tax system that treats the middle class in Cleveland like the middle class in San Francisco" should have told you that I am very aware that many areas in the country will vote for him because his tax structure will benefit them. I think it's funny how people can say how noble they are when in reality it all boils down to how well each candidate will help them with their individual agenda.
You then go on to say that I'm being intentionally dishonest, so I take the time to prove to you the actual costs of a person in one of these high cost of living areas (and you have nothing to disprove that), and then it's time to twist words.
Here's a novel thought for you. Accept that there are others with different viewpoints than yours and will vote based on that. They're not right or wrong, they simply have a different point of view than yours. I can accept that in you and other people, why is so hard for you to accept that in others? Not everyone lives in the same area Shorty and people have different needs. Is that so hard for you to understand and accept? It appears to be since you keep saying things like "If you're going to make a statement as to which candidate "was really helping the middle class", you have to include the middle class of the nation as a whole"...again Shorty, I don't have to. Do you tell people in Alaska that they have to accept an average countrywide temperature of 55 degrees when they're freezing their asses off in the winter? That's not their reality, and your reality isn't mine. Try and somehow understand that.
P.S. If you read straight through the entire message on my previous response, you will see each point you made and my reply. Not sure why it saved it inside your quote and then put my final thought outside the quote. Nothing was changed on your words.
I'm not sure how I twisted what you stated. Simply put, you used a general statement that one candidate's tax plan was "really helping the middle class", (which also implied that one wasn't). Your statement wasn't "really helping the middle class of high cost urban centers". It was a statement that covers a blanket over the entire country. The distinction should be obvious.
I believe my exact comment that you quoted is an accurate statement. It includes everyone in the country and most certainly includes everyone in high cost of living areas. I believe that if you took everyone from everywhere, more or most wouldn't consider that figure as middle class ( I never said "all" which is what you seem to be interpreting). Furthermore, I believe most who consider themselves middle class would come in under the annual income figure of $112,000 (individual or combined).
Again, it is not about who to vote for. That has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with your statement that one candidate's tax plan is the one that's "really helping the middle class" and that you've concluded that candidate is McCain. McCain's tax plan may be the one that favors your circumstances, but for most that are "middle class", it wouldn't be the one that favors them. Again, the distinction should be obvious.
Put in the context that I gave, I never said that. I listed a condition. If you are aware of that and still wrote this, then perhaps it's true that you are intentionally dishonest (again, note the conditional).
Again, this isn't about who anyone should vote for. I think you're making my point for me. In some cases, McCain's tax plan is more favorable. In others, it would be Obama's. It's my belief that more of the "middle class" is helped by Obama's and I take exception to your initial statement that Mccain is the candidate whose tax plan is the one that "is really helping the middle class". If you don't get what I take exception to by now, you never will. If you want to add the qualifier to your statement and say that McCain's tax plan is better for those taking in over $112,000, I won't contest that.
All I can say is I'm glad you're not on my debate team. It's like talking to a wall. You've said nothing productive throughout this conversation, added nothing to disprove anything I've said, and gone off topic because you can't contest my original statement (which you continue to ignore). I suggest taking a communication class at a community college that deals with comprehension. Effective communication and discussion doesn't mean you ignore the person's points you're talking to and just try to ram your views down a person's throat. I've made my point and if you don't want to accept it, that's fine. I really don't have any more interest or feel like wasting any more time listening to you ramble off topic and disregard everything I've said.
Perhaps the next time Obama makes a claim on how he's helping the middle class, he can have a lawyer with a deep voice come in and do a voice over at the end of the commercial that states something like....
"Offer to help Middle Class not valid in San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Honolulu, Chicago, Boston, Manhattan, Philadelphia, and Seattle."
I think this quote from the movie Billy Madison really applies to you (in fact, maybe you were who they had in mind when they wrote it).
Cut Across Shorty, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul!
Take care Shorty...I'm done with this post. Feel free to write any response you like. I won't be reading it and it doesn't matter to me.
Perhaps the next time Obama makes a claim on how he's helping the middle class, he can have a lawyer with a deep voice come in and do a voice over at the end of the commercial that states something like....
"Offer to help Middle Class not valid in San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Honolulu, Chicago, Boston, Manhattan, Philadelphia, and Seattle."
I think this quote from the movie Billy Madison really applies to you (in fact, maybe you were who they had in mind when they wrote it).
Cut Across Shorty, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul!
Take care Shorty...I'm done with this post. Feel free to write any response you like. I won't be reading it and it doesn't matter to me.
You start writing about how you're sick of the insults on these pages. So what is the general tenor of your latest post in this thread? I think it's fair to say that it's a series of insults (IMO unwarranted).
I don't think I'm the one with the comprehension problem and you've now resorted to twisting the points that I've made. I think the statement you made in post#1 that McCain is the candidate whose tax plan is the one that "is really helping the middle class" is incorrect and only applying it to yourself or areas where there's a high cost of living is cherry-picking. Unlike you, I include everywhere, which BTW includes areas with a high cost of living (somehow you write that I've said otherwise and that's dishonest).
There's at least one neutral organization that specializes in taxation who've concluded the Obama's tax plan does more to help the middle class than McCain's. Unfortunately, I can't remember their name.
I don't think I'm the one with the comprehension problem and you've now resorted to twisting the points that I've made. I think the statement you made in post#1 that McCain is the candidate whose tax plan is the one that "is really helping the middle class" is incorrect and only applying it to yourself or areas where there's a high cost of living is cherry-picking. Unlike you, I include everywhere, which BTW includes areas with a high cost of living (somehow you write that I've said otherwise and that's dishonest).
There's at least one neutral organization that specializes in taxation who've concluded the Obama's tax plan does more to help the middle class than McCain's. Unfortunately, I can't remember their name.
Since "bodyforlife" won't be opening this thread again, this is directed to anyone else following along.
I've only contested one thing and it's in the original statement. That one thing "is" the topic. I'm being accused of going off topic when it's the only thing I've discussed in this thread. I'm not contesting anything other than the statement that McCain's tax plan is the the one that "is really helping the middle class". Like I said, that is the topic (and I'm the one being accused the comprehension problem
hno
.
