What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (2 Viewers)

Statorama said:
With voter fraud on your side, there's no way your guy will lose.
This is funny.
;) "Sad" seems more apropos.
What's sad is you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that the Republican party is clean here. Republicans are masters at voter fraud. Shall I provide all the links to prove the rampant voter fraud the Republican party has perpetrated this year and in the last election?
That silly colorado thing? Please. It pales in comparison to TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND fraudulent voters in Ohio. If the Democrats had their act together like this in 2000, we'd be looking at Al Gore's final days as President.
 
Statorama said:
With voter fraud on your side, there's no way your guy will lose.
This is funny.
;) "Sad" seems more apropos.
What's sad is you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that the Republican party is clean here. Republicans are masters at voter fraud. Shall I provide all the links to prove the rampant voter fraud the Republican party has perpetrated this year and in the last election?
That silly colorado thing? Please. It pales in comparison to TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND fraudulent voters in Ohio. If the Democrats had their act together like this in 2000, we'd be looking at Al Gore's final days as President.
This is not a case of 200,000 fraudulent voters. :loco:
 
Statorama said:
With voter fraud on your side, there's no way your guy will lose.
This is funny.
;) "Sad" seems more apropos.
What's sad is you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that the Republican party is clean here. Republicans are masters at voter fraud. Shall I provide all the links to prove the rampant voter fraud the Republican party has perpetrated this year and in the last election?
That silly colorado thing? Please. It pales in comparison to TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND fraudulent voters in Ohio. If the Democrats had their act together like this in 2000, we'd be looking at Al Gore's final days as President.
This is not a case of 200,000 fraudulent voters. :loco:
THERE'S MORE? :mellow:
 
Statorama said:
With voter fraud on your side, there's no way your guy will lose.
This is funny.
:loco: "Sad" seems more apropos.
What's sad is you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that the Republican party is clean here. Republicans are masters at voter fraud. Shall I provide all the links to prove the rampant voter fraud the Republican party has perpetrated this year and in the last election?
That silly colorado thing? Please. It pales in comparison to TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND fraudulent voters in Ohio. If the Democrats had their act together like this in 2000, we'd be looking at Al Gore's final days as President.
This is not a case of 200,000 fraudulent voters. :mellow:
;)
 
Statorama said:
With voter fraud on your side, there's no way your guy will lose.
This is funny.
:wall: "Sad" seems more apropos.
What's sad is you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that the Republican party is clean here. Republicans are masters at voter fraud. Shall I provide all the links to prove the rampant voter fraud the Republican party has perpetrated this year and in the last election?
That silly colorado thing? Please. It pales in comparison to TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND fraudulent voters in Ohio. If the Democrats had their act together like this in 2000, we'd be looking at Al Gore's final days as President.
This is not a case of 200,000 fraudulent voters. :loco:
THERE'S MORE? :eek:
Whatever number you want to make up Stat - the only one you're convincing is yourself anyway.
 
Statorama said:
With voter fraud on your side, there's no way your guy will lose.
This is funny.
:wall: "Sad" seems more apropos.
What's sad is you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that the Republican party is clean here. Republicans are masters at voter fraud. Shall I provide all the links to prove the rampant voter fraud the Republican party has perpetrated this year and in the last election?
That silly colorado thing? Please. It pales in comparison to TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND fraudulent voters in Ohio. If the Democrats had their act together like this in 2000, we'd be looking at Al Gore's final days as President.
This is not a case of 200,000 fraudulent voters. :loco:
THERE'S MORE? :eek:
Whatever number you want to make up Stat - the only one you're convincing is yourself anyway.
Hold on, I'll post the link. BRB.
 
Statorama said:
With voter fraud on your side, there's no way your guy will lose.
This is funny.
:wall: "Sad" seems more apropos.
What's sad is you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that the Republican party is clean here. Republicans are masters at voter fraud. Shall I provide all the links to prove the rampant voter fraud the Republican party has perpetrated this year and in the last election?
That silly colorado thing? Please. It pales in comparison to TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND fraudulent voters in Ohio. If the Democrats had their act together like this in 2000, we'd be looking at Al Gore's final days as President.
If Jeb Bush and his Republican cronies hadn't stopped thousands of legal votes, then yes, Gore would have been President. I think it's obvious that voter fraud has been a problem with both parties for 100s of years.
 
Statorama said:
With voter fraud on your side, there's no way your guy will lose.
This is funny.
:wall: "Sad" seems more apropos.
What's sad is you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that the Republican party is clean here. Republicans are masters at voter fraud. Shall I provide all the links to prove the rampant voter fraud the Republican party has perpetrated this year and in the last election?
That silly colorado thing? Please. It pales in comparison to TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND fraudulent voters in Ohio. If the Democrats had their act together like this in 2000, we'd be looking at Al Gore's final days as President.
This is not a case of 200,000 fraudulent voters. :eek:
THERE'S MORE? :eek:
Whatever number you want to make up Stat - the only one you're convincing is yourself anyway.
Hold on, I'll post the link. BRB.
:loco:Wait, let us have some time to play the "guess the unsubstantiated rumor mongering blog Statorama will use as "information"" game first. Who's going first?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Supreme Court rules for Obama in Vote Fraud Case

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court sided Friday with Ohio's top elections official in a dispute with the state Republican Party over voter registrations.

The justices overruled a federal appeals court that had ordered Ohio's top elections official to do more to help counties verify voter eligibility.

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, faced a deadline of Friday to set up a system to provide local officials with names of newly registered voters whose driver's license numbers or Social Security numbers on voter registration forms don't match records in other government databases.

Ohio Republicans contended the information for counties would help prevent fraud. Brunner said the GOP is trying to disenfranchise voters.

In a brief unsigned opinion, the justices said they were not commenting on whether Ohio is complying with a provision of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 that lays out requirements for verifying voter eligibility.

Instead, they said they were granting Brunner's request because it appears that the law does not allow private entities, like the Ohio GOP, to file suit to enforce the provision of the law at issue.

About 200,000 of 666,000 voters who have registered in Ohio since Jan. 1 have records that don't match. Brunner has said the discrepancies most likely stem from innocent clerical errors rather than fraud but has set up a verification plan.

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said lower court rulings have clearly said the HAVA regulations require the secretary of state to match against the list, find where there's been fraud and inconsistencies and report them to counties.

"Why in the world would that not happen? We have the technology, the budget, the means and the manpower to make that happen. Do we really want to have to find out after the fact that we had counties that would have been decided one way or another because the secretary of state didn't bother doing the job the HAVA required?" Davis told reporters on a conference call. "I think the secretary of state ought to do her job," he added.
To paraphrase Shaquille O'Neal,Yo Libs, tell me how the facts taste.

 
Supreme Court rules for Obama in Vote Fraud Case

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court sided Friday with Ohio's top elections official in a dispute with the state Republican Party over voter registrations.

The justices overruled a federal appeals court that had ordered Ohio's top elections official to do more to help counties verify voter eligibility.

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, faced a deadline of Friday to set up a system to provide local officials with names of newly registered voters whose driver's license numbers or Social Security numbers on voter registration forms don't match records in other government databases.

Ohio Republicans contended the information for counties would help prevent fraud. Brunner said the GOP is trying to disenfranchise voters.

In a brief unsigned opinion, the justices said they were not commenting on whether Ohio is complying with a provision of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 that lays out requirements for verifying voter eligibility.

Instead, they said they were granting Brunner's request because it appears that the law does not allow private entities, like the Ohio GOP, to file suit to enforce the provision of the law at issue.

About 200,000 of 666,000 voters who have registered in Ohio since Jan. 1 have records that don't match. Brunner has said the discrepancies most likely stem from innocent clerical errors rather than fraud but has set up a verification plan.

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said lower court rulings have clearly said the HAVA regulations require the secretary of state to match against the list, find where there's been fraud and inconsistencies and report them to counties.

"Why in the world would that not happen? We have the technology, the budget, the means and the manpower to make that happen. Do we really want to have to find out after the fact that we had counties that would have been decided one way or another because the secretary of state didn't bother doing the job the HAVA required?" Davis told reporters on a conference call. "I think the secretary of state ought to do her job," he added.
To paraphrase Shaquille O'Neal,Yo Libs, tell me how the facts taste.
:wall:
Brunner has said the discrepancies most likely stem from innocent clerical errors rather than fraud but has set up a verification plan.
 
Supreme Court rules for Obama in Vote Fraud Case

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court sided Friday with Ohio's top elections official in a dispute with the state Republican Party over voter registrations.

The justices overruled a federal appeals court that had ordered Ohio's top elections official to do more to help counties verify voter eligibility.

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, faced a deadline of Friday to set up a system to provide local officials with names of newly registered voters whose driver's license numbers or Social Security numbers on voter registration forms don't match records in other government databases.

Ohio Republicans contended the information for counties would help prevent fraud. Brunner said the GOP is trying to disenfranchise voters.

In a brief unsigned opinion, the justices said they were not commenting on whether Ohio is complying with a provision of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 that lays out requirements for verifying voter eligibility.

Instead, they said they were granting Brunner's request because it appears that the law does not allow private entities, like the Ohio GOP, to file suit to enforce the provision of the law at issue.

About 200,000 of 666,000 voters who have registered in Ohio since Jan. 1 have records that don't match. Brunner has said the discrepancies most likely stem from innocent clerical errors rather than fraud but has set up a verification plan.

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said lower court rulings have clearly said the HAVA regulations require the secretary of state to match against the list, find where there's been fraud and inconsistencies and report them to counties.

"Why in the world would that not happen? We have the technology, the budget, the means and the manpower to make that happen. Do we really want to have to find out after the fact that we had counties that would have been decided one way or another because the secretary of state didn't bother doing the job the HAVA required?" Davis told reporters on a conference call. "I think the secretary of state ought to do her job," he added.
To paraphrase Shaquille O'Neal,Yo Libs, tell me how the facts taste.
:thumbdown:
Brunner has said the discrepancies most likely stem from innocent clerical errors rather than fraud but has set up a verification plan.
Shaq forgot to bold that part. :thumbup:
 
Supreme Court rules for Obama in Vote Fraud Case

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court sided Friday with Ohio's top elections official in a dispute with the state Republican Party over voter registrations.

The justices overruled a federal appeals court that had ordered Ohio's top elections official to do more to help counties verify voter eligibility.

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, faced a deadline of Friday to set up a system to provide local officials with names of newly registered voters whose driver's license numbers or Social Security numbers on voter registration forms don't match records in other government databases.

Ohio Republicans contended the information for counties would help prevent fraud. Brunner said the GOP is trying to disenfranchise voters.

In a brief unsigned opinion, the justices said they were not commenting on whether Ohio is complying with a provision of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 that lays out requirements for verifying voter eligibility.

Instead, they said they were granting Brunner's request because it appears that the law does not allow private entities, like the Ohio GOP, to file suit to enforce the provision of the law at issue.

About 200,000 of 666,000 voters who have registered in Ohio since Jan. 1 have records that don't match. Brunner has said the discrepancies most likely stem from innocent clerical errors rather than fraud but has set up a verification plan.

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said lower court rulings have clearly said the HAVA regulations require the secretary of state to match against the list, find where there's been fraud and inconsistencies and report them to counties.

"Why in the world would that not happen? We have the technology, the budget, the means and the manpower to make that happen. Do we really want to have to find out after the fact that we had counties that would have been decided one way or another because the secretary of state didn't bother doing the job the HAVA required?" Davis told reporters on a conference call. "I think the secretary of state ought to do her job," he added.
To paraphrase Shaquille O'Neal,Yo Libs, tell me how the facts taste.
:thumbup:
Brunner has said the discrepancies most likely stem from innocent clerical errors rather than fraud but has set up a verification plan.
Shaq forgot to bold that part. :lmao:
Well what the hell is she going to say? YAHOO, the fraudulent votes get on the rolls just like I planned, YIPEE?
 
Wait, let us have some time to play the "guess the unsubstantiated rumor mongering blog Statorama will use as "information"" game first. Who's going first?
Associated Press champ. thanks for playing.
You're no fun at all anymore.
aww come on, not even a lil bit? :thumbup:
Well like I've been saying the recent racial shtick isn't working for you, so I'm hoping you go back to your more tried and true antics, or come up with something fresh that has legs. You're at your best with the Palin material - that stuff is gold.
 
Statorama said:
With voter fraud on your side, there's no way your guy will lose.
This is funny.
:football: "Sad" seems more apropos.
What's sad is you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that the Republican party is clean here. Republicans are masters at voter fraud. Shall I provide all the links to prove the rampant voter fraud the Republican party has perpetrated this year and in the last election?
That silly colorado thing? Please. It pales in comparison to TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND fraudulent voters in Ohio. If the Democrats had their act together like this in 2000, we'd be looking at Al Gore's final days as President.
This is not a case of 200,000 fraudulent voters. :no:
THERE'S MORE? :(
Stat, seriously man, you're showing your ### in this thread. You remind mind of a pathetic street walker, talking aimlessly... looking for what? Attention?
 
Statorama said:
With voter fraud on your side, there's no way your guy will lose.
This is funny.
:football: "Sad" seems more apropos.
What's sad is you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that the Republican party is clean here. Republicans are masters at voter fraud. Shall I provide all the links to prove the rampant voter fraud the Republican party has perpetrated this year and in the last election?
That silly colorado thing? Please. It pales in comparison to TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND fraudulent voters in Ohio. If the Democrats had their act together like this in 2000, we'd be looking at Al Gore's final days as President.
This is not a case of 200,000 fraudulent voters. :no:
THERE'S MORE? :(
Stat, seriously man, you're showing your ### in this thread. You remind mind of a pathetic street walker, talking aimlessly... looking for what? Attention?
lol
 
I asked this in another thread earlier, and there was no response. Maybe someone here knows? TIA:

I'm hoping someone who knows can answer this question:

A big Republican talking point is that Obama's tax for those earning $250,000 or more includes any business which reports this as gross income. I have heard Dems deny this. What is the truth?

If it is not true, and we're dealing with individuals only, while I am still against it, I will be enormously relieved. This will not hurt the economy nearly as much as I thought (though it's hard to see how it will help things, unless Obama was willing to use the new revenue to decrease, rather than increase spending.)

If it is partially true, meaning it includes businesses who earn $250K or more as net income, this IMO will be bad for the economy, though not extremely bad. But it's likely it will prevent an increase in jobs, which is something Obama says is important to him. How can small businesses afford to hire new people when their costs on current income are about to increase?

If it is completely true (meaning the tax is on business gross income) this IMO will be extremely bad for our economy. Not only will small businesses be unable to hire new people, many of them will most likely have to fire existing people to make ends meet. Some companies will no doubt go out of business. I question whether this strategy would in the long run increase the amount of revenue the government receives. It will cause misery for all parties.

So I'm hoping it's not true. Does anybody know what the facts are?

 
I asked this in another thread earlier, and there was no response. Maybe someone here knows? TIA:

I'm hoping someone who knows can answer this question:

A big Republican talking point is that Obama's tax for those earning $250,000 or more includes any business which reports this as gross income. I have heard Dems deny this. What is the truth?

If it is not true, and we're dealing with individuals only, while I am still against it, I will be enormously relieved. This will not hurt the economy nearly as much as I thought (though it's hard to see how it will help things, unless Obama was willing to use the new revenue to decrease, rather than increase spending.)

If it is partially true, meaning it includes businesses who earn $250K or more as net income, this IMO will be bad for the economy, though not extremely bad. But it's likely it will prevent an increase in jobs, which is something Obama says is important to him. How can small businesses afford to hire new people when their costs on current income are about to increase?

If it is completely true (meaning the tax is on business gross income) this IMO will be extremely bad for our economy. Not only will small businesses be unable to hire new people, many of them will most likely have to fire existing people to make ends meet. Some companies will no doubt go out of business. I question whether this strategy would in the long run increase the amount of revenue the government receives. It will cause misery for all parties.

So I'm hoping it's not true. Does anybody know what the facts are?
From the official Obama website faqs on his approach to taxes for small businesses:
Do Small Businesses pay taxes on their gross revenues or their net income?

As a small business owner who claims small business income on your individual tax return (whether through a sole proprietorship, partnership, or S-corp) you pay individual income taxes only on your net income — or profit — and not on your firm’s gross revenue. Accordingly, when Obama says that he would roll back the Bush tax cuts for all couples earning more than $250,000 a year, these income figures include only net income that a small business owner takes home. Because net income is usually far lower than gross revenue, even if your revenue is above $250,000 you are still likely to get a tax cut under Obama’s tax plan. If you are a small business owner using the tax calculator, you should select your income level based on the net income you claim — your revenues minus your costs — to see how you would fare under each candidate.
 
I asked this in another thread earlier, and there was no response. Maybe someone here knows? TIA:

I'm hoping someone who knows can answer this question:

A big Republican talking point is that Obama's tax for those earning $250,000 or more includes any business which reports this as gross income. I have heard Dems deny this. What is the truth?

If it is not true, and we're dealing with individuals only, while I am still against it, I will be enormously relieved. This will not hurt the economy nearly as much as I thought (though it's hard to see how it will help things, unless Obama was willing to use the new revenue to decrease, rather than increase spending.)

If it is partially true, meaning it includes businesses who earn $250K or more as net income, this IMO will be bad for the economy, though not extremely bad. But it's likely it will prevent an increase in jobs, which is something Obama says is important to him. How can small businesses afford to hire new people when their costs on current income are about to increase?

If it is completely true (meaning the tax is on business gross income) this IMO will be extremely bad for our economy. Not only will small businesses be unable to hire new people, many of them will most likely have to fire existing people to make ends meet. Some companies will no doubt go out of business. I question whether this strategy would in the long run increase the amount of revenue the government receives. It will cause misery for all parties.

So I'm hoping it's not true. Does anybody know what the facts are?
From the official Obama website faqs on his approach to taxes for small businesses:
Do Small Businesses pay taxes on their gross revenues or their net income?

As a small business owner who claims small business income on your individual tax return (whether through a sole proprietorship, partnership, or S-corp) you pay individual income taxes only on your net income — or profit — and not on your firm’s gross revenue. Accordingly, when Obama says that he would roll back the Bush tax cuts for all couples earning more than $250,000 a year, these income figures include only net income that a small business owner takes home. Because net income is usually far lower than gross revenue, even if your revenue is above $250,000 you are still likely to get a tax cut under Obama’s tax plan. If you are a small business owner using the tax calculator, you should select your income level based on the net income you claim — your revenues minus your costs — to see how you would fare under each candidate.
Bingo, had a hard time finding that. The Chicken Little's on Obama's tax plan don't really seem to know the details that well. The screams of socialism are getting a bit tired.
 
I asked this in another thread earlier, and there was no response. Maybe someone here knows? TIA:

I'm hoping someone who knows can answer this question:

A big Republican talking point is that Obama's tax for those earning $250,000 or more includes any business which reports this as gross income. I have heard Dems deny this. What is the truth?

If it is not true, and we're dealing with individuals only, while I am still against it, I will be enormously relieved. This will not hurt the economy nearly as much as I thought (though it's hard to see how it will help things, unless Obama was willing to use the new revenue to decrease, rather than increase spending.)

If it is partially true, meaning it includes businesses who earn $250K or more as net income, this IMO will be bad for the economy, though not extremely bad. But it's likely it will prevent an increase in jobs, which is something Obama says is important to him. How can small businesses afford to hire new people when their costs on current income are about to increase?

If it is completely true (meaning the tax is on business gross income) this IMO will be extremely bad for our economy. Not only will small businesses be unable to hire new people, many of them will most likely have to fire existing people to make ends meet. Some companies will no doubt go out of business. I question whether this strategy would in the long run increase the amount of revenue the government receives. It will cause misery for all parties.

So I'm hoping it's not true. Does anybody know what the facts are?
From the official Obama website faqs on his approach to taxes for small businesses:
Do Small Businesses pay taxes on their gross revenues or their net income?

As a small business owner who claims small business income on your individual tax return (whether through a sole proprietorship, partnership, or S-corp) you pay individual income taxes only on your net income — or profit — and not on your firm’s gross revenue. Accordingly, when Obama says that he would roll back the Bush tax cuts for all couples earning more than $250,000 a year, these income figures include only net income that a small business owner takes home. Because net income is usually far lower than gross revenue, even if your revenue is above $250,000 you are still likely to get a tax cut under Obama’s tax plan. If you are a small business owner using the tax calculator, you should select your income level based on the net income you claim — your revenues minus your costs — to see how you would fare under each candidate.
OK, that's good, so it's not the catastrophic third option I was afraid of. The GOP is lying, big surprise there. Thanks, Gr00vus.Still, it's not a good thing. It seems pretty clear to me that most of the new jobs in this country would be from companies that net more than $250k. If you tax these companies more, aren't you reducing the ability of these companies to do so? Unemployment will surely increase, right?

 
I asked this in another thread earlier, and there was no response. Maybe someone here knows? TIA:I'm hoping someone who knows can answer this question:A big Republican talking point is that Obama's tax for those earning $250,000 or more includes any business which reports this as gross income. I have heard Dems deny this. What is the truth?If it is not true, and we're dealing with individuals only, while I am still against it, I will be enormously relieved. This will not hurt the economy nearly as much as I thought (though it's hard to see how it will help things, unless Obama was willing to use the new revenue to decrease, rather than increase spending.)If it is partially true, meaning it includes businesses who earn $250K or more as net income, this IMO will be bad for the economy, though not extremely bad. But it's likely it will prevent an increase in jobs, which is something Obama says is important to him. How can small businesses afford to hire new people when their costs on current income are about to increase?If it is completely true (meaning the tax is on business gross income) this IMO will be extremely bad for our economy. Not only will small businesses be unable to hire new people, many of them will most likely have to fire existing people to make ends meet. Some companies will no doubt go out of business. I question whether this strategy would in the long run increase the amount of revenue the government receives. It will cause misery for all parties.So I'm hoping it's not true. Does anybody know what the facts are?
It depends on how the income is reported, but most small businesses do report revenue as individual income so yes they would be subject to the higher individual tax rates. To put this in context, however, the Tax Policy Center has estimates only 2% of small businesses would actually exceed the the 200K or 250K thresholds to be subject to higher rates; and since Obama's tax plans provide more relief at the middle and lower tax brackets, the majority of small businesses would likely do better under Obama's proposals than McCain's.
 
I asked this in another thread earlier, and there was no response. Maybe someone here knows? TIA:

I'm hoping someone who knows can answer this question:

A big Republican talking point is that Obama's tax for those earning $250,000 or more includes any business which reports this as gross income. I have heard Dems deny this. What is the truth?

If it is not true, and we're dealing with individuals only, while I am still against it, I will be enormously relieved. This will not hurt the economy nearly as much as I thought (though it's hard to see how it will help things, unless Obama was willing to use the new revenue to decrease, rather than increase spending.)

If it is partially true, meaning it includes businesses who earn $250K or more as net income, this IMO will be bad for the economy, though not extremely bad. But it's likely it will prevent an increase in jobs, which is something Obama says is important to him. How can small businesses afford to hire new people when their costs on current income are about to increase?

If it is completely true (meaning the tax is on business gross income) this IMO will be extremely bad for our economy. Not only will small businesses be unable to hire new people, many of them will most likely have to fire existing people to make ends meet. Some companies will no doubt go out of business. I question whether this strategy would in the long run increase the amount of revenue the government receives. It will cause misery for all parties.

So I'm hoping it's not true. Does anybody know what the facts are?
From the official Obama website faqs on his approach to taxes for small businesses:
Do Small Businesses pay taxes on their gross revenues or their net income?

As a small business owner who claims small business income on your individual tax return (whether through a sole proprietorship, partnership, or S-corp) you pay individual income taxes only on your net income — or profit — and not on your firm’s gross revenue. Accordingly, when Obama says that he would roll back the Bush tax cuts for all couples earning more than $250,000 a year, these income figures include only net income that a small business owner takes home. Because net income is usually far lower than gross revenue, even if your revenue is above $250,000 you are still likely to get a tax cut under Obama’s tax plan. If you are a small business owner using the tax calculator, you should select your income level based on the net income you claim — your revenues minus your costs — to see how you would fare under each candidate.
Bingo, had a hard time finding that. The Chicken Little's on Obama's tax plan don't really seem to know the details that well. The screams of socialism are getting a bit tired.
The scare tactic is the only one the GOP knows anymore. So, they're just aiming it at ever topic they can and hoping something will stick.There's some political comic strip gold in there somewhere, i just dont have artistic ability to make it happen.

 
I asked this in another thread earlier, and there was no response. Maybe someone here knows? TIA:

I'm hoping someone who knows can answer this question:

A big Republican talking point is that Obama's tax for those earning $250,000 or more includes any business which reports this as gross income. I have heard Dems deny this. What is the truth?

If it is not true, and we're dealing with individuals only, while I am still against it, I will be enormously relieved. This will not hurt the economy nearly as much as I thought (though it's hard to see how it will help things, unless Obama was willing to use the new revenue to decrease, rather than increase spending.)

If it is partially true, meaning it includes businesses who earn $250K or more as net income, this IMO will be bad for the economy, though not extremely bad. But it's likely it will prevent an increase in jobs, which is something Obama says is important to him. How can small businesses afford to hire new people when their costs on current income are about to increase?

If it is completely true (meaning the tax is on business gross income) this IMO will be extremely bad for our economy. Not only will small businesses be unable to hire new people, many of them will most likely have to fire existing people to make ends meet. Some companies will no doubt go out of business. I question whether this strategy would in the long run increase the amount of revenue the government receives. It will cause misery for all parties.

So I'm hoping it's not true. Does anybody know what the facts are?
From the official Obama website faqs on his approach to taxes for small businesses:
Do Small Businesses pay taxes on their gross revenues or their net income?

As a small business owner who claims small business income on your individual tax return (whether through a sole proprietorship, partnership, or S-corp) you pay individual income taxes only on your net income — or profit — and not on your firm’s gross revenue. Accordingly, when Obama says that he would roll back the Bush tax cuts for all couples earning more than $250,000 a year, these income figures include only net income that a small business owner takes home. Because net income is usually far lower than gross revenue, even if your revenue is above $250,000 you are still likely to get a tax cut under Obama’s tax plan. If you are a small business owner using the tax calculator, you should select your income level based on the net income you claim — your revenues minus your costs — to see how you would fare under each candidate.
OK, that's good, so it's not the catastrophic third option I was afraid of. The GOP is lying, big surprise there. Thanks, Gr00vus.Still, it's not a good thing. It seems pretty clear to me that most of the new jobs in this country would be from companies that net more than $250k. If you tax these companies more, aren't you reducing the ability of these companies to do so? Unemployment will surely increase, right?
unemployment is going up regardless of the tax plans of the next POTUS.
 
But Neofight is correct. In the sense that guys like Sean Hannity are claiming "socialism", this is NOT socialism. I don't agree with it, don't think it helps, but it only returns us to the taxation of the 1990's and does not, as Hannity claims, makes us "France."

 
I asked this in another thread earlier, and there was no response. Maybe someone here knows? TIA:

I'm hoping someone who knows can answer this question:

A big Republican talking point is that Obama's tax for those earning $250,000 or more includes any business which reports this as gross income. I have heard Dems deny this. What is the truth?

If it is not true, and we're dealing with individuals only, while I am still against it, I will be enormously relieved. This will not hurt the economy nearly as much as I thought (though it's hard to see how it will help things, unless Obama was willing to use the new revenue to decrease, rather than increase spending.)

If it is partially true, meaning it includes businesses who earn $250K or more as net income, this IMO will be bad for the economy, though not extremely bad. But it's likely it will prevent an increase in jobs, which is something Obama says is important to him. How can small businesses afford to hire new people when their costs on current income are about to increase?

If it is completely true (meaning the tax is on business gross income) this IMO will be extremely bad for our economy. Not only will small businesses be unable to hire new people, many of them will most likely have to fire existing people to make ends meet. Some companies will no doubt go out of business. I question whether this strategy would in the long run increase the amount of revenue the government receives. It will cause misery for all parties.

So I'm hoping it's not true. Does anybody know what the facts are?
From the official Obama website faqs on his approach to taxes for small businesses:
Do Small Businesses pay taxes on their gross revenues or their net income?

As a small business owner who claims small business income on your individual tax return (whether through a sole proprietorship, partnership, or S-corp) you pay individual income taxes only on your net income — or profit — and not on your firm’s gross revenue. Accordingly, when Obama says that he would roll back the Bush tax cuts for all couples earning more than $250,000 a year, these income figures include only net income that a small business owner takes home. Because net income is usually far lower than gross revenue, even if your revenue is above $250,000 you are still likely to get a tax cut under Obama’s tax plan. If you are a small business owner using the tax calculator, you should select your income level based on the net income you claim — your revenues minus your costs — to see how you would fare under each candidate.
OK, that's good, so it's not the catastrophic third option I was afraid of. The GOP is lying, big surprise there. Thanks, Gr00vus.Still, it's not a good thing. It seems pretty clear to me that most of the new jobs in this country would be from companies that net more than $250k. If you tax these companies more, aren't you reducing the ability of these companies to do so? Unemployment will surely increase, right?
That goes into a whole different area which would include policy on energy and job creation through retrofitting car plants to build high fuel efficiency cars and creating green jobs, etc. But you've got to look where we're at right now and realize that old models are not working and McCain doesn't really have any new ideas. As for job creation under Obama's tax policies, here is a taste:II. TAX CUTS TO ENHANCE COMPETITIVENESS AND HELP CREATE JOBS

Barack Obama’s tax plan will help small businesses grow and will encourage job creation in America. He will

directly cut taxes for small business and for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, will relieve

healthcare costs for all firms and will reward investments in innovation. Barack Obama pro-business tax

policies include:

o Eliminating Capital Gains Taxes for Entrepreneurs and Investors in Small Business. Barack Obama

understands that small businesses are the engines of our economy, and he will eliminate all capital gains

taxes on investments in small and start up firms.

o Cutting Corporate Tax Rates for Firms that Create Jobs in America. Barack Obama will repeal tax

breaks and loopholes that reward corporations that retain their earnings overseas, and will use those savings

to lower corporate tax rates for companies that expand or start operations in the United States.

Printed in House

Paid for by Obama for America

o Offering a Small Business Healthcare Tax Credit: To help small businesses compete in the global

economy while still providing quality health insurance, Barack Obama will offer a new refundable 50

percent health tax credit on employee premiums paid by employers. His comprehensive healthcare plan will

relieve health costs for all firms by bringing down national healthcare costs by $2,500 per family, annually.

o Making the R&D Tax Credit Permanent. Barack Obama will make the Research and Development tax

credit permanent so that firms can rely on it when making decisions to invest in domestic R&D over multiyear

timeframes.

III. CUTTING TAXES BELOW THE LEVEL UNDER RONALD REAGAN WHILE RESTORING FISCAL

RESPONSIBILITY

Barack Obama will keep taxes low for everyone, while working to reform our tax code and make sure that

everyone pays their fair share. Obama also believes that after eight years of reckless fiscal policies that

squandered historic surpluses and added $4 trillion to the deficit, it is vital for candidates to put forward specific

ideas on how they will pay for their proposals without passing on further deficits, debt, and a weaker economy

to our children. That is why he has called for closing inefficient tax loopholes, cracking down on offshore tax

havens, and repealing a portion of the tax cuts passed in the last eight years for families making over $250,000.

In net, even after these tax changes, the Obama plan is a tax cut. His middle class tax cuts are larger than the

loophole closers and rollbacks that he has proposed for families making over $250,000. According to the Tax

Policy Center, the Obama plan would reduce taxes as a share of the economy to less than 18.2 percent - the

level of taxes that prevailed under President Ronald Reagan.v The Obama plan pays for these tax cuts by cutting

spending overall. Obama’s spending cuts include responsibly ending the war in Iraq, limiting payments to highincome

farmers, cutting subsidies for private plans in Medicare, reforming student loans, cutting earmarks to at

least the level they were in 1994, ending no-bid contracting, and phasing out unnecessary and duplicative

programs. He will also support pay-as-you-go budget rules and a constitutionally acceptable line-item veto to

cut pork-barrel spending. Overall, Barack Obama’s budget will reduce the deficit relative its current level and

its realistic future trajectory.

The fiscally responsible tax changes that Obama is calling for include:

o Broaden the corporate tax base and eliminate special preferences: Our tax code is riddled with special

interest loopholes that allow some corporations and wealthy individuals to avoid paying their fair share of

taxes. As President, Obama would move aggressively to close inefficient loopholes by taking steps that

include:

o Reforming international tax loopholes: including reforming deferral to end the incentive for

companies to ship jobs overseas and closing the offshore pension loophole;

o Closing domestic tax loopholes: including clarifying the economic substance doctrine and increasing

reporting of capital gains to close the tax gap;

o Eliminating special tax breaks for oil and gas companies: including repealing special expensing

rules, foreign tax credit benefits, and manufacturing deductions for oil and gas firms; and

o Closing other loopholes: including taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and closing the CEO

pay loophole.

o Cracking down on international tax havens: According to a recent Congressional investigation, offshore

Printed in House

Paid for by Obama for America

tax abuse costs this country up to $100 billion each year.vi Barack Obama has been a leader in the Senate on

designing efforts to crack down on tax havens by requiring greater disclosure of financial transactions in tax

secrecy jurisdictions. As President, Obama would work with Congress to enact meaningful legislation to

ensure that the Treasury and IRS have the tools they need to close down the use of international tax havens

for improper tax avoidance or tax evasion. This will save the United States tens of billions of dollars each

year.

 
I asked this in another thread earlier, and there was no response. Maybe someone here knows? TIA:

I'm hoping someone who knows can answer this question:

A big Republican talking point is that Obama's tax for those earning $250,000 or more includes any business which reports this as gross income. I have heard Dems deny this. What is the truth?

If it is not true, and we're dealing with individuals only, while I am still against it, I will be enormously relieved. This will not hurt the economy nearly as much as I thought (though it's hard to see how it will help things, unless Obama was willing to use the new revenue to decrease, rather than increase spending.)

If it is partially true, meaning it includes businesses who earn $250K or more as net income, this IMO will be bad for the economy, though not extremely bad. But it's likely it will prevent an increase in jobs, which is something Obama says is important to him. How can small businesses afford to hire new people when their costs on current income are about to increase?

If it is completely true (meaning the tax is on business gross income) this IMO will be extremely bad for our economy. Not only will small businesses be unable to hire new people, many of them will most likely have to fire existing people to make ends meet. Some companies will no doubt go out of business. I question whether this strategy would in the long run increase the amount of revenue the government receives. It will cause misery for all parties.

So I'm hoping it's not true. Does anybody know what the facts are?
From the official Obama website faqs on his approach to taxes for small businesses:
Do Small Businesses pay taxes on their gross revenues or their net income?

As a small business owner who claims small business income on your individual tax return (whether through a sole proprietorship, partnership, or S-corp) you pay individual income taxes only on your net income — or profit — and not on your firm’s gross revenue. Accordingly, when Obama says that he would roll back the Bush tax cuts for all couples earning more than $250,000 a year, these income figures include only net income that a small business owner takes home. Because net income is usually far lower than gross revenue, even if your revenue is above $250,000 you are still likely to get a tax cut under Obama’s tax plan. If you are a small business owner using the tax calculator, you should select your income level based on the net income you claim — your revenues minus your costs — to see how you would fare under each candidate.
OK, that's good, so it's not the catastrophic third option I was afraid of. The GOP is lying, big surprise there. Thanks, Gr00vus.Still, it's not a good thing. It seems pretty clear to me that most of the new jobs in this country would be from companies that net more than $250k. If you tax these companies more, aren't you reducing the ability of these companies to do so? Unemployment will surely increase, right?
In addition to what Neoflight posted, you have to consider the tax credits Obama will put in place for new job creation by businesses. I think it's something like $3500 per new employee. What the net effect would be of that credit combined with a higher tax rate if you're pulling in more than 250K profit I'm not sure. But honestly, if a business can make more money, and needs to expand (and create new jobs to do so), I don't know of many that would stifle such plans because it would kick them into a higher tax bracket as result of increased profits. Obviously there will be cost benefit analysis there on a case by case basis - but if the tax increase is going to eat up all your new profit margin, it probably wasn't such a great expansion idea in the first place.ETA: I'm not sure about the part of your statement in bold. I think historically it's been the small businesses which have been the greatest source of new job creation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks again, Neofight. It sounds good, except:

1. As a free market conservative, I am leery of scapegoating Big Business. I don't want anyone to have loopholes in particular, but if you're going to close them you had better take a hard look first at the economic costs of doing so. I don't want to do anything at this time which results in higher prices and/or more layoffs, even if it looks more just on paper.

2. Likewise, it sounds good on paper to remove tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas, but that may hurt free trade while not succeeding in the goal of keeping the jobs here. If this idea is essentially the same thing as protectionism, then I'm against it.

3. As I wrote earlier, I'm just not convinced that companies that net under $250,000 are going to hire new employees in any significant numbers, while the ones being taxed more really are the ones we depend on to do so. So under this new taxation, I don't see how we can expect an increase in employment numbers.

Of course, this is all just my opinion. I'm trying to express my concern over these ideas without succumbing to the propoganda being spread by the Far Right. Understand that the news that the taxes will not include gross income is something I already consider to be wonderful news, and makes me dislike Obama's plan much much less. But these things still concern me very much.

 
3. As I wrote earlier, I'm just not convinced that companies that net under $250,000 are going to hire new employees in any significant numbers, while the ones being taxed more really are the ones we depend on to do so. So under this new taxation, I don't see how we can expect an increase in employment numbers.
Here's an article discussing the breakdown of new job creation. It may not be THE article, but I think the information within is generally recognized as accurate. Some highlights:
1. Small businesses create a vastly disproportionate share of the net new jobs in the United States. The precise share is difficult to construct for a variety of reasons, some of which are noted below. However, it is reasonable to estimate that over the past twenty-five years two-thirds of the net new jobs in the private sector originated among small firms that account for about half of total private employment.(3)

2. The smallest size class (1-19 employees) produces the most net new jobs relative to its share of total employment. In fact, the smallest size class is the only size class that has produced more net jobs relative to its employment share. Kirchhoff, using a somewhat different approach, calculated that small, single-establishment firms formed in just 1977-78 and their growth over the next six years created 21 percent of all net jobs produced between 1977 and 1984.(4)

3. The share of net jobs created by small (and large) businesses change from measuring period to measuring period. This variation appears closely tied to the business cycle. Larger firms expand their share of net new employment toward the end of expansions. Small businesses provide a relatively stable supply throughout. Thus, variation in shares is primarily due to variations in large firm employment practices.

4. Jobs created from small business births are about two to three times as plentiful as the number created from small business expansions.(5) This proportion seems to vary with the business cycle. Similarly, jobs lost in small businesses are primarily a function of business deaths rather than of business contractions.
There's a lot more to that article worth reading through - but the net takeaway for me is that it's still the small businesses that create a majority of new jobs.
 
Jesus, tim.. just vote for him.
Jesus isn't running, last I checked.
Anyhow, what difference does it make? He's gonna win, whether I vote for him or not. (I live in California, so in effect I am voting for him.)When he gets into office, I will support him as my President, and oppose any action that he takes that I disagree with. I have no doubts he will be a better President than our current one, and I have no doubt that unless he completely changes his current persona, I will like him. He seems a very likeable guy to me. Also, so many of the people who dislike Obama are so despicable to me; that makes it easier for me to root for the guy, as well. But I'm a free market conservative, and I will remain so. So when Obama and the Democratic Congress takes actions which appear to me to be opposed to the free market, I will roundly criticize them. But always in a respectful way, without exaggerating the consequences if I can help it.
 
Jesus, tim.. just vote for him.
Jesus isn't running, last I checked.
Well, some people have made claims...lol. Nice one Tim.While I can see your side of the concerns above, I seriously don't believe this is a scapegoating of Big Business so much as it is a correction of the idea that they are free to do as they please. I can't feel too bad about companies that were making record profits, like the oil industry, or about the banking industry and Wall Street handling their business like kids at recess. As I mentioned to you before, they need some guidance, not just for the sake of the consumer but also their own protection. And that would include their employees too.I also believe you can have protections for workers here in the US and still have free trade. But free trade shouldn't mean you are giving away the farm to the other countries and getting little in return. Free trade is not a freebie. That is what we did with NAFTA, which in the end was a bad deal for the US. However, terms can be worked out that protect the individuals while guaranteeing open markets and prosperity for industries. Both directions.Also, I am a small business owner. I am not gonna sit here and blow smoke in places you'd rather not have it, but in all honesty I prefer a place like where I live, where local, home grown businesses are everywhere and they do employ plenty of people. Now, can this replace the 1000's of jobs in big corporations? Not likely. They should be allowed to compete and thrive, based on the merits. But in light of the fiasco on Wall Street, the mortgage/housing bubble and Enron (going back a few years) I am seeing less merit and more greed, arrogance and extremely poor decision making. Read Obama's plan, and you'll see how he wants to address this. He is also pro free trade (with conditions, of course).
 
Saw this in a CNN article:

A fired-up McCain told a crowd in Miami that while Americans are facing hard times and the nation's financial system is in crisis, "the next president won't have time to get used to the office.""He won't have the luxury of studying up on the issues before he acts. He will have to act immediately." ...
This is another example of why Obama is a better candidate for office than McCain. There are two levels of bad with this statement by McCain. One, it is important that our leaders take the time and effort to understand the issues they'll be facing - otherwise bad decisions tend to be made if you act immediately without sufficient information. Two, McCain's entire campaign has shown the problems that ensue from acting immediately without doing some research and applying some thought - and he still can't see how that's an undesirable way to approach things. He can't recognize a failed mode of thinking even when it's causing him to lose an election - that's a pretty mind bogglingly big gap in his analytical process. John McCain would run the country in the same reactionary and uninformed way he's run his campaign. The U.S. can't afford that.
 
L.A. Times endorses Obama - marking the first times the L.A. Times has ever endorsed the Democratic nominee for President, and the first time the L.A. times has endorsed any Presidential candidate since 1972.

Barack Obama for president

He is the competent, confident leader who represents the aspirations of the nation.

October 19, 2008

It is inherent in the American character to aspire to greatness, so it can be disorienting when the nation stumbles or loses confidence in bedrock principles or institutions. That's where the United States is as it prepares to select a new president: We have seen the government take a stake in venerable private financial houses; we have witnessed eight years of executive branch power grabs and erosion of civil liberties; we are still recovering from a murderous attack by terrorists on our own soil and still struggling with how best to prevent a recurrence.

We need a leader who demonstrates thoughtful calm and grace under pressure, one not prone to volatile gesture or capricious pronouncement. We need a leader well-grounded in the intellectual and legal foundations of American freedom. Yet we ask that the same person also possess the spark and passion to inspire the best within us: creativity, generosity and a fierce defense of justice and liberty.

The Times without hesitation endorses Barack Obama for president.

Our nation has never before had a candidate like Obama, a man born in the 1960s, of black African and white heritage, raised and educated abroad as well as in the United States, and bringing with him a personal narrative that encompasses much of the American story but that, until now, has been reflected in little of its elected leadership. The excitement of Obama's early campaign was amplified by that newness. But as the presidential race draws to its conclusion, it is Obama's character and temperament that come to the fore. It is his steadiness. His maturity.

These are qualities American leadership has sorely lacked for close to a decade. The Constitution, more than two centuries old, now offers the world one of its more mature and certainly most stable governments, but our political culture is still struggling to shake off a brash and unseemly adolescence. In George W. Bush, the executive branch turned its back on an adult role in the nation and the world and retreated into self-absorbed unilateralism.

John McCain distinguished himself through much of the Bush presidency by speaking out against reckless and self-defeating policies. He earned The Times' respect, and our endorsement in the California Republican primary, for his denunciation of torture, his readiness to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and his willingness to buck his party on issues such as immigration reform. But the man known for his sense of honor and consistency has since announced that he wouldn't vote for his own immigration bill, and he redefined "torture" in such a disingenuous way as to nearly embrace what he once abhorred.

Indeed, the presidential campaign has rendered McCain nearly unrecognizable. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was, as a short-term political tactic, brilliant. It was also irresponsible, as Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory. The decision calls into question just what kind of thinking -- if that's the appropriate word -- would drive the White House in a McCain presidency. Fortunately, the public has shown more discernment, and the early enthusiasm for Palin has given way to national ridicule of her candidacy and McCain's judgment.

Obama's selection also was telling. He might have scored a steeper bump in the polls by making a more dramatic choice than the capable and experienced Joe Biden. But for all the excitement of his own candidacy, Obama has offered more competence than drama.

He is no lone rider. He is a consensus-builder, a leader. As a constitutional scholar, he has articulated a respect for the rule of law and the limited power of the executive that make him the best hope of restoring balance and process to the Justice Department. He is a Democrat, leaning further left than right, and that should be reflected in his nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a good thing; the court operates best when it is ideologically balanced. With its present alignment at seven justices named by Republicans and two by Democrats, it is due for a tug from the left.

We are not sanguine about Obama's economic policies. He speaks with populist sweep about taxing oil companies to give middle-class families rebates that of course they would welcome, but would be far too small to stimulate the economy. His ideas on taxation do not stray far from those put forward by Democrats over the last several decades. His response to the most recent, and drastic, fallout of the sub- prime mortgage meltdown has been appropriately cautious; this is uncharted territory, and Obama is not a master of economic theory or practice.

And that's fine. Obama inspires confidence not so much in his grasp of Wall Street finance but in his acknowledgment of and comfort with his lack of expertise. He will not be one to forge far-reaching economic policy without sounding out the best thinkers and practitioners, and he has many at his disposal. He has won the backing of some on Wall Street not because he's one of them but because they recognize his talent for extracting from a broad range of proposals a coherent and workable program.

On paper, McCain presents the type of economic program The Times has repeatedly backed: One that would ease the tax burden on business and other high earners most likely to invest in the economy and hire new workers. But he has been disturbingly unfocused in his response to the current financial situation, rushing to "suspend" his campaign and take action (although just what action never became clear). Having little to contribute, he instead chose to exploit the crisis.

We may one day look back on this presidential campaign in wonder. We may marvel that Obama's critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even with the endorsements, this race is about to change momentum to McCain. The polls are starting to trend that way. Obama's not changing enough minds, Joe the Plumber is a perfect example. Joe would actually benefit from a tax code perspective with an Obama presidency. Still, Joe's holding out hope for when he's becomes part of the McCain circle that he won't have to pay more taxes once that happens (yeah, good luck with that Joe).

The code words are still out there. I keep hearing "There's just something about Obama I don't trust" and "I just don't know enough about him". I'm very nervous, this is all reminiscint of '00 and '04. Throw in Obama's ethnicity and this campaign is in trouble.

 
Even with the endorsements, this race is about to change momentum to McCain. The polls are starting to trend that way. Obama's not changing enough minds, Joe the Plumber is a perfect example. Joe would actually benefit from a tax code perspective with an Obama presidency. Still, Joe's holding out hope for when he's becomes part of the McCain circle that he won't have to pay more taxes once that happens (yeah, good luck with that Joe). The code words are still out there. I keep hearing "There's just something about Obama I don't trust" and "I just don't know enough about him". I'm very nervous, this is all reminiscint of '00 and '04. Throw in Obama's ethnicity and this campaign is in trouble.
I agree with you to an extent. The ace in the hole for Obama is that he will outspend McCain 3 to 1 going forward, possibly more. He'll have 3 times as many ads out there for the next two weeks, and he'll have his 30 minute infomercial on two national stations. He'll have plenty of opportunity to end McCain's Fear Uncertainty Doubt campaign and then some. Now it could backfire if he screws up his infomercial, but I haven't seen anything from that campaign to make me think he will. There could be backlash from overexposure, but I doubt it.
 
Even with the endorsements, this race is about to change momentum to McCain. The polls are starting to trend that way. Obama's not changing enough minds, Joe the Plumber is a perfect example. Joe would actually benefit from a tax code perspective with an Obama presidency. Still, Joe's holding out hope for when he's becomes part of the McCain circle that he won't have to pay more taxes once that happens (yeah, good luck with that Joe).

The code words are still out there. I keep hearing "There's just something about Obama I don't trust" and "I just don't know enough about him". I'm very nervous, this is all reminiscint of '00 and '04. Throw in Obama's ethnicity and this campaign is in trouble.
He admitted yesterday that he would receive a tax break under Obama's plan. There may be a slight bump in the national polls to McCain, races always get tighter near the end and many undecided Republicans will go to McCain. But he has done nothing to win over the independents, and the Obama ground game still seems to be the big unknown, not Obama himself. The race really isn't about the national polls at all; at this point, they will fluctuate but the momentum on the ground, in the states is still trending Obama. People are going to be very, very surprised. Obama likely already has a huge lead from the early voters, which the McCain sleaze campaign won't affect. Couple that with the fact that most pollsters under-sample Dems by registration %, minorities and do nothing to track those will only cell phones... this will be a landslide.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Obama likely already has a huge lead from the early voters, which the McCain sleaze campaign won't affect. Couple that with the fact that most pollsters under-sample Dems by registration %, minorities and do nothing to track those will only cell phones... this will be a landslide.
These are all hopes and wishes. I think people will be shocked when these things don't make nearly as much impact on the actual votes cast as some think they will.
 
Even with the endorsements, this race is about to change momentum to McCain. The polls are starting to trend that way. Obama's not changing enough minds, Joe the Plumber is a perfect example. Joe would actually benefit from a tax code perspective with an Obama presidency. Still, Joe's holding out hope for when he's becomes part of the McCain circle that he won't have to pay more taxes once that happens (yeah, good luck with that Joe).

The code words are still out there. I keep hearing "There's just something about Obama I don't trust" and "I just don't know enough about him". I'm very nervous, this is all reminiscint of '00 and '04. Throw in Obama's ethnicity and this campaign is in trouble.
Joe the Plumber is not a perfect example. He's a hardcore right-winger...the guy wouldn't vote for a Dem if his life depended on it.
 
Even with the endorsements, this race is about to change momentum to McCain. The polls are starting to trend that way. Obama's not changing enough minds, Joe the Plumber is a perfect example. Joe would actually benefit from a tax code perspective with an Obama presidency. Still, Joe's holding out hope for when he's becomes part of the McCain circle that he won't have to pay more taxes once that happens (yeah, good luck with that Joe). The code words are still out there. I keep hearing "There's just something about Obama I don't trust" and "I just don't know enough about him". I'm very nervous, this is all reminiscint of '00 and '04. Throw in Obama's ethnicity and this campaign is in trouble.
I agree with you to an extent. The ace in the hole for Obama is that he will outspend McCain 3 to 1 going forward, possibly more. He'll have 3 times as many ads out there for the next two weeks, and he'll have his 30 minute infomercial on two national stations. He'll have plenty of opportunity to end McCain's Fear Uncertainty Doubt campaign and then some. Now it could backfire if he screws up his infomercial, but I haven't seen anything from that campaign to make me think he will. There could be backlash from overexposure, but I doubt it.
Very well put and thoughtful post, but it helps illustrate my fear. Obama's already won over the thoughtful folks. It's the woman that thinks Obama's an Arab, it's Joe the Plumber, it's my father in law. The people that would benefit but can't see past the surface. When it's all said and done November 5th we're going to be scratching our heads saying "How could this have happened? Where did it go wrong?" Color me very nervous right now.
 
Even with the endorsements, this race is about to change momentum to McCain. The polls are starting to trend that way. Obama's not changing enough minds, Joe the Plumber is a perfect example. Joe would actually benefit from a tax code perspective with an Obama presidency. Still, Joe's holding out hope for when he's becomes part of the McCain circle that he won't have to pay more taxes once that happens (yeah, good luck with that Joe).

The code words are still out there. I keep hearing "There's just something about Obama I don't trust" and "I just don't know enough about him". I'm very nervous, this is all reminiscint of '00 and '04. Throw in Obama's ethnicity and this campaign is in trouble.
Joe the Plumber is not a perfect example. He's a hardcore right-winger...the guy wouldn't vote for a Dem if his life depended on it.
Perhaps. I've seen the interviews with Joe as well, but I don't know well enough to accept that statement as fact. My point is he's an example of someone that would actually benefit from an Obama presidency, yet still will not support him. IMO there's a segment of voters that won't be able to see past the surface and it's the size of that segment that makes me nervous right now.
 
Even with the endorsements, this race is about to change momentum to McCain. The polls are starting to trend that way. Obama's not changing enough minds, Joe the Plumber is a perfect example. Joe would actually benefit from a tax code perspective with an Obama presidency. Still, Joe's holding out hope for when he's becomes part of the McCain circle that he won't have to pay more taxes once that happens (yeah, good luck with that Joe).

The code words are still out there. I keep hearing "There's just something about Obama I don't trust" and "I just don't know enough about him". I'm very nervous, this is all reminiscint of '00 and '04. Throw in Obama's ethnicity and this campaign is in trouble.
Joe the Plumber is not a perfect example. He's a hardcore right-winger...the guy wouldn't vote for a Dem if his life depended on it.
Perhaps. I've seen the interviews with Joe as well, but I don't know well enough to accept that statement as fact. My point is he's an example of someone that would actually benefit from an Obama presidency, yet still will not support him. IMO there's a segment of voters that won't be able to see past the surface and it's the size of that segment that makes me nervous right now.
Joe the Plumber said in one of his press conferences that he's against Social Security. If that doesn't tell you that he'll never vote for a Democrat, then I don't know what will.
 
It's the woman that thinks Obama's an Arab, it's Joe the Plumber, it's my father in law. The people that would benefit but can't see past the surface. When it's all said and done November 5th we're going to be scratching our heads saying "How could this have happened? Where did it go wrong?" Color me very nervous right now.
These people were never going to vote for Obama, never, no matter what. There are many people out there who are truly undecided, and I can understand why. There's appeal to the policies of both candidates, and weaknesses with both candidates. What are they going to base their decision on ultimately? What's the deciding factor for them?

I think for the majority of them it's going to be their bank accounts, jobs, retirement savings.

The candidates have very different approaches in this area (though they have a few similarities too).

Obama has 2 weeks and 3 times as much money (and by all accounts a vastly superior ground campaign) to tell these people why his approach is better than McCain's for them. No previous Democratic candidate has had an advantage of that magnitude to almost unilaterally shape public perception - and that's a massive difference between now and 2000 and 2004. With one third of his budget Obama can counter anything McCain throws out there - with the other 2/3 he can speak about whatever he wants with near impunity. Like I said, it could backfire if Obama puts the wrong messages out there. But at this point, with no guaranteed national audience for McCain left now that the debates are done, Obama really is in the driver seat.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top