Or in color (with a bit more of an intro):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Y6UKMp8Qw&NR=1

>> ^volumptuous:
so nyaaah


This is the first time I've actually seen documentation to follow up that claim, at first glance, it seems you're right, and I look forward to being completely wrong about McCain's plan.

;-)

>> ^volumptuous:

Yes he will.
His plan will, for the first time ever in this country, make your health care premiums a taxable income.


It's true, they become taxable, and he gives you a tax credit for $2500 or $5000. For 99.9% of people who receive insurance from their work, this is way more than enough. Our local (Premera) Blue Cross insurance offers a family 80/20, $500 deduct, $8000 Max OOP plan for $452 per month. If a family were to go directly to Premera, they could get this plan and get a tax credit for this. BUT, that family would have been taxed anyways. The new taxable item is the premiums that you pay from work, but considering that his plan completely covers a very comprehensive plan without *any* group rate, I have no problem believing that it will pay for a vast majority of americans' employer-provided plans. (My premiums are $70/month, for a plan very similar to the mentioned plan)

Here's the kicker. McCains plan is a TAX CREDIT. The previous system you purchased with pre-tax dollars, but you still paid outright. In the new system, people who HAD been paying their employer $450/month for insurance will now pay $450 taxed dollars (about $585 of pre-tax dollars). They'll end up spending $5000 ($7000 pre-tax dollars), but get a $5000 tax credit ($7000 pre-tax dollars). In order to actually have to pay more for insurance than you were before, you'd have to be paying $15000/year.



Now, personally, I like Obama's plan better, but saying that McCain is raising taxes because of this is rather disingenuous. The only people whose taxes will be raised are those getting insurance from their current employer and paying more than $1250/month... A quick survey of people on my IM list says they all pay less than $200/month for group-rate health care. The change from today is that citizens who purchase their health care independently get a tax break as well.

Look, I'm voting for Obama, I want him to win, but spouting off Mathews talking points makes it sound like you're terribly ill-informed. Now granted, *you* may end up getting taxed more, but most will not. I really like Obama's state-sponsored health care better, but either one will bring much-needed relief to those living paycheck-to-paycheck. Obama soundly trounces McCains' tax relief for those making under $40k, and is still reasonably better for those making less than $85. Neither tax plan is sustainable, and both will have to raise taxes if they EVER hope to have a balanced budget.

The Fannie/Freddy buyout is not intended to help families. At all. Ever. The buyout *only* allows for the investors to get some of their money back. The investors = all of the people and corporations who invested in the companies.

If they went bankrupt, some company (right now, my bet is on BOA) would buy the loans for pennies on the dollar. BOA would never foreclose on the loans, because all they'd have to do is get 5 to 10 years of solid payments, and they'd have made their money back, since they bought them for so much less than what they were worth.


Thats why everyone, republicans and democrats, are pissed. Us democrats aren't pissed because we're using public money, we're pissed because it's not going to help those who need it (the people being foreclosed on), but rather the CEO who is walking away with 15 Million in severance.

Well, Deedub81 is right, McCain won't raise taxes, but nickreal is right also, Obama gives more tax relief to more people. Both candidates want to cut taxes, and according to MANY tax professionals, both of them are doomed to failure. The problem is that we've got this huge fucking war going on, but the people who wanted the war (i.e. those who voted for Bush) don't want to pay for it.

Obama's plan gives the most tax relief at the lowest, gradually offering less relief, until you start making over $250k, when the taxes start going up.

McCain offers tax cuts across the board, but he offers the smallest relief to those making the least, and the most benefit to those making the most. For someone who thinks the fundementals of the american economy is the average joe worker, he certainly isn't going to be doing any favors for them.

Now, I'm not endorsing either plan. I think that the government needs to raise taxes until it can have a balanced budget, and once we're no longer in other countries pockets, start downsizing itself.

Unfortunately, after the extreme of Phil Gramm's deregulation and Cheney wrapping up our tax dollars and giving it to Haliburton and the oil companies, we REQUIRE a very strong democratic economic agenda. Its not the perfect form of government, and I really hope it doesn't last for long (I would have voted Libertarian till they nominated Bob Barr).

Your homework, children, is to read an actual analysis of the plans, rather than spouting off whatever Hannity or Matthews tell you to be upset about. I'd recommend starting with the excerpt from this analysis to get you in the mood:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411749


>> ^deedub81:
McCain wants to raise the tax for everyone? I don't know where you're getting your information but it's wrong.
Try again.

>> ^nickreal03:
>> Obama would do an even worse job. Part of the reason the American economy
>> is on hold is knowing if Obamarx makes it in, people stand to lose even
>> more to taxation.
The taxation is the the problem. The problem is who you are taxing... In Obama he wants to raise the tax to the top 10% and lower the tax for the rest. Mc Dogle here wants to raise the tax for everyone. So you want less tax for you then vote Obama.

alright, so... one factory employs 5 workers, with 1 capitalist... They add new equipment, two workers now produce the same amount of goods. What he does not mention is that for every 'generation' of equipment, production companies usually have to hire more technical people to maintain the equipment (it doesn't take care of itself). So, while it might fire 3 people, it will hire one maintenance personnel. So, there are two extra bodies in the unemployed pool.

Then the investors come in, build more factories. To make things simple, let's say that one of the new factories is the same size as the existing one, and one is half the size. This means that there are two more capitalists, two more maintenance workers, and three more laborers.

If you're paying attention, you will notice that the competition has created 1 more labor position than was available before the rise in efficiency, two more technical positions, and two more capitalist positions.

Now, I'm not saying that this example is VALID. I'm saying that the example that he used ends up helping society, rather than harming it, as he suggests.

Our brilliant teacher here also forgets that someone out there has to create the new technologies that are used. Advancements in technologies don't appear out of mid-air.

I also like how he mistakes the voice of Corporations for the voice of Capitalism. Capitalism is about more than just corporations, it's about the entire society. It's called vote with your dollars. If you want to see capitalism at work, look towards your nearest union, or search sift for 'carrot mob'.


Now, don't get me wrong, I think that there will be a time where Capitalism no longer provides any benefit to society, but IMHO, that's 2-300 years from now. Maybe the world will switch over then, but if we do, it'll be because of all of the advancements that only Capitalism could have provided.

Meh, you can buy CFLs made in California:
http://www.lightsofamerica.com/

If the senator really wants to prevent people from mercury poisoning, he should be voting against Coal Plants and incinerators:
http://www.tva.gov/environment/air/ontheair/merc_emis.htm

Granted, I don't think it should be banned, I just think that we should tax incads.

ok, there's some black magic going on here, I hate this kind of crap, and I watched the entire thing.

^ The camera is for viewing the outside world, as it would be impossible to see anything inside the cloaked area (if light bends around your eyes to make you invisible, then it can't go into your eyes so that you can see).
A camera would allow for wide angle, recording, and infrared viewing, vs. looking out with your own eyes.

What Vallely meant:

It really comes down to... blindly fighting against 'the man', not knowing anything about the situation. All authority is bad, and we must fight against them.

For all Vallely knew, Musks had just assaulted someone and was being 'detained'...


I'm not saying the security officers were 'right', but it's this "attack first, don't apologize later... we're righteous because they don't understand us" crap that starts most skirmishes, and they never care about the consequences of their actions.

LOL @ guy that threw first punch is first one down, last one up

can I get an *eia ?

Disable adblock and the video will work just fine.