That’s A Lot Of Lipstick
John McCain has been calling Barack Obama’s priorites “skewed,” but the struggling Senator might want to re-think his own priorities. According to a new filing with the Federal Election Commission, Sarah Palin’s makeup artist was the highest paid individual in McCain’s presidential campaign during the first half of October.
To the McCain campaign, style is more valuable than substance:
Amy Strozzi, who works on the reality show “So You Think You Can Dance” and has been Palin’s traveling stylist, was paid $22,800, according to campaign finance reports for the first two weeks in October. In contrast, McCain’s foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, was paid $12,500, the report showed.
And that’s not all:
In addition, Angela Lew, who is Ms. Palin’s traveling hair stylist, got $10,000 for “Communications Consulting” in the first half of October.
This is on top of the big bucks that were paid last month for McCain’s own makeup artist, and the even bigger bucks spent on the RNC’s shopping spree for Palin.
Bashing a female for running for office?
That reveals the lie that Liberals treat all women fairly.
October 24th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Seriously Joel?
I guess her hair and makeup are OK, but Palin’s communication skills? Ten large?
I would say the campaign deserves it’s money back.
October 24th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
How much has been spent on EgObama’s wardrobe, etc.? He’s spent a GREAT DEAL more money in his effort o buy the the election. There are a lot more important issues.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
But Dennis,
You have to admit the McCain/Palin campaign did not get much bang for their buck if they spend 10K on Palin’s ‘communication skills’.
You really want people who spend money so poorly spending U.S. tax money?
October 24th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I like it when the left mocks palin for her $150,000 wardrobe, which after the election will be auctioned off to help charities.
Yet the liberal media doesn’t mention michelle spending $450 on snacks that a few hours later are going to be worthless crap flushed down a toilet.
It’s that liberal perspective.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Hey Wendell..Do men only vote for men? Why should women, who have worked for decades to gain credibility through hard work and education, give it up to a GOP whore, without a brain…how simplistic. She is nothing but a marketing prop…and already stale.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
If you go by the couric and gibson interviews, you’ve got a point.
If you use her live appearances she comes off much better. Highest rated SNL in 14 years, her rallies outdraw biden (is he still allowed to speak to the press after his last moment of truth about obama).
October 24th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Another proud liberal/democrat proving what the hillary supporters say about the sexism in the democrat party.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
T2P spreads a lie:
First of all, yuck. Second of all, I was mocking her communication skills, not her snappy (if temporary) wardrobe. Thirdly, not true, read this.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
T2P,
I won’t deny the comedic factor of her speaking, it’s up there with Bill Murray or John Belushi, for sure.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
>>Hey Wendell..Do men only vote for men? Why should women, who have worked for decades to gain credibility through hard work and education, give it up to a GOP whore, without a brain…how simplistic. She is nothing but a marketing prop…and already stale.
Posted by bkc<<
Another fine example of a Liberal. Sayimg ome thing, and immediately contradicting themselves if the landscape changes.
October 24th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Why are Liberals always looking at other peoples money?
The money was raised by the RNC and they can spend THEIR money as THEY see fit.
October 24th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
>>Why are Liberals always looking at other peoples money?
The money was raised by the RNC and they can spend THEIR money as THEY see fit.
Posted by Joe McIntyre<<
They are always looking at other people’s spending because liberals, at their core, are socialists or communists, and they believe all wealth is owned by the collective, not by the individual.
This socialistic/communistic mindset is expressed by Barack HUSSEIN Obama as:
“Spreading the wealth around”
October 24th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
wendell.. your horns are showing dear :)
October 24th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Windy,
Barack HUSSEIN Obama is neither socialist nor a communist. I know you just think those are bad words, and since you don’t like Obama you want to call him something bad, but you just come across as silly and ill informed.
October 24th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
>>wendell.. your horns are showing dear :)
Posted by Bev<<
John 8:31-32 “Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” NASB
October 24th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
>>Windy,
Barack HUSSEIN Obama is neither socialist nor a communist. I know you just think those are bad words, and since you don’t like Obama you want to call him something bad, but you just come across as silly and ill informed.
Posted by Um Cara<<
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/socialism
Main Entry: com·mu·nism
Pronunciation: \ˈkäm-yə-ˌni-zəm, -yü-\
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
Date: 1840
1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d: communist systems collectively
http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/communism
Obama has stated that he wants to: “Spread the wealth around”.
Obama is, by definition, a socialist.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
>>Windy,
Barack HUSSEIN Obama is neither socialist nor a communist. I know you just think those are bad words, and since you don’t like Obama you want to call him something bad, but you just come across as silly and ill informed.
Posted by Um Cara<<
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/socialism
Also know as spreading the wealth around.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Gotta love that delay in posts showing up….
October 24th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Windy,
I really hate dictionary posts in blogs, almost as much as I hate bible quotes in blogs, but anyway…
1. he doesn’t want to do that
2. a. haven’t heard him call for the elimination of private property
2. b. haven’t heard of any proposals to do this (other than the limited action of Bush’s bailout that both he and McCain voted for)
3. you think progressive tax plans are socialist? So Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, McCain and Obama are all socialists? (I could go further back in presidential history – but those are the presidents under whom I personally have experienced taxation, so I’ll stick to them for my argument)
October 24th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Sounds more like Bush Nationalising the banks and socialising the risks and losses of corporations, while privatizing the profits, than Obama’s tax cuts for the middle class.
Also know as corporate welfare.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
>>Windy,
I really hate dictionary posts in blogs, almost as much as I hate bible quotes in blogs, but anyway…
1. he doesn’t want to do that
2. a. haven’t heard him call for the elimination of private property
2. b. haven’t heard of any proposals to do this (other than the limited action of Bush’s bailout that both he and McCain voted for)
3. you think progressive tax plans are socialist? So Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, McCain and Obama are all socialists? (I could go further back in presidential history – but those are the presidents under whom I personally have experienced taxation, so I’ll stick to them for my argument)
Posted by Um Cara<<
Of course you hate dictionary and Bible quotes that prove you are wrong.
Nobody likes being proven to be an ineffective debater.
Barack HUSSEIN Obama wants to tax more successful people at a higher rate. That is effectively eliminating those person’s private property, i.e. their money.
If you raise the taxes on a corporation, what really happens?
1. They move offshore.
2. They do not invest in increasing their structure in the USA.
3. They lay-off workers.
4. They stop hiring new workers.
5. They increase the price of the items they produce.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
>>Sounds more like Bush Nationalising the banks and socialising the risks and losses of corporations, while privatizing the profits, than Obama’s tax cuts for the middle class.
Also know as corporate welfare.
Posted by OldLefty<<
Pardon me sir, which branch of the government is in control of the purse strings now? The same group in control for the last two years?
That’s right, the Democrats.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Wendell E,
No, it’s just that we should be able to assume that literate people know the definitions of words. And I really don’t care what some person’s particular holy book says – it does not help your argument, except with those who share your specific belief system.
Actually, I enjoy discussions with effective debaters. There are several effective conservative debaters on this blog, let’s see if you show yourself to be one.
OK, so when do you start debating? Let me know, because I want to be sure and find out if you are effective or not.
Anyway, you just described a progressive tax system, which I already mentioned has been in place a mighty long time. Are you calling Reagan a socialist?
October 24th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
>>Wendell E,
Of course you hate dictionary and Bible quotes that prove you are wrong.
No, it’s just that we should be able to assume that literate people know the definitions of words. And I really don’t care what some person’s particular holy book says – it does not help your argument, except with those who share your specific belief system.<<
I’m not surprised you are not a Christian.
Barack HUSSEIN Obama states that he is a “Born again Christian”.
Communism is an athiest system, isn’t it?
By the way, the flat tax, with absolutely no deductions, is the only fair tax.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Sarah don’t know nuthin about makeup! I’ve got PROS working on MY hair.
BTW, vote for me instead! I’m running too! votetruth08.com
October 24th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I’ve got to hand it to Palin, she’s figured out how to accessorize trashy high red heels with the Book of Revelation.
11 days until the Enlightenment!
A
October 24th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
What else is Palin going to say until Nov.4?
I wish she’d shut up!
With 12 days to go until the election, today was the wrong time for Sarah Palin to say this about…
Amnesty
http://www.univision.com
Interviewer:”To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?
Palin:I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.”
October 24th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
“Highest rated SNL in 14 years…”
Everybody loves a clown.
“The money was raised by the RNC and they can spend THEIR money as THEY see fit.”
That’s a real elitist attitude.
“If you raise the taxes on a corporation, what really happens?”
Corporations can’t do anything unless WE allow them to do it. Corporations are a legal fiction. They exist at our sufferance. And unlike so many members of the Bush regime, corporations are absolutely subject to the rule of law.
“No, it’s just that we should be able to assume that literate people know the definitions of words…”
Why would anyone assume anything when the Republicans pick a woman for VP who can’t speak coherent English?
October 24th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Wendell E,
I never said whether I was Christian or not. The point is that throwing around matters of faith are not particularly strong debate tactics. It’s fine between you and your pastor, or in your sunday school class. But since even members of the same religion have fundamental doctrine differences, it’s rather pointless in a public forum to toss out bible quotes.
And?
I don’t know that it has to be. I know it is a terrible system of government that I would never want to live under. Google Communisim if you are that interested as to whether it is an ‘athiest’ system or not.
Very few major party candidates would agree with you (actually, probably no major party candidates would agree with the complete lack of deductions). I can see an argument for a flat tax (not that you have made one, mind you), but a progressive tax system does not equal socialism.
October 24th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
…OK, so when do you start debating? Let me know, because I want to be sure and find out if you are effective or not…
Wendell E has been debating. The claim is BHO is a socialist. The data is the dictionary referance and the warrant (very weak, but the data still holds)is taxing at a higher rate.
UM Cara refuting the data on grounds of not hearing the distribution of wealth statement will not disprove data.
October 24th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Joe,
Wendell’s ‘data’ shows Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, McCain and Obama are all socialists. If he really has started debating, he is not very good at it.
I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume he has not yet begun. I think it rather cruel of you to imply that Wendell has been trying so far.
October 24th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
You know everyone seems to talk about how Obama can and has brought everyone together, and yet I can’t think of an election that has divided people more. He said he did not want race to be an issue in this election and yet everyone who has opposed him has been labeled racist. Now anyone who does not vote for him is racist. There is talk of riots if he does not win, because it will only be because of his race. And he started it all with his ” they’re going to tell you I look different”, and I don’t look like the guys on money comments. You know I am sorry to say I voted for him in the primaries.
My change of mind is strictly due to the confidence in his honesty. How can you believe he will do what he says when the first thing he promised was to run on public financing. As soon as he won the nomination he declined to HONOR that commitment.
And then to see people calling Sarah Palin the names she is right here on what passes for a respectable blog is amazing. Nice atmosphere you’ve created Alan. Has any money been spent for similar things on the Obama side?
October 24th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
UM Cara
My bad. “Spreading the wealth around” is the warrant and higher taxes is the backing.The debate was started when the data and warrant were posted. You must nullify the warrant or warrants to cancel the data and void the claim.
October 24th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Joe,
In reference to his dictionary definition of socialism, specifically:
a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
His said:
He has described the progressive tax system we have in the United States. So, to accept his argument is to accept that practically every candidate to run for office, and every historical president that I am familiar with, are socialists.
This argument is so patently silly that I choose to believe he has not, in reality, begun his real argument.
Oh, and he said something about communists and atheists.
October 24th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Um Cara
Your knowledge of history must stop on February 3, 1913.
Also, Christians accept the Bible as the word of God. You did not.
October 24th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Catholic Site asks Obama: Just Tell Us The Truth
http://www.catholic.org/video/?v=1688
October 24th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Wendell,
When I spoke about presidents I was familiar with, I was referring to my earlier statement that I was only going as far back as presidents under whom I had paid federal taxes. Reagan was president when I got my first job.
First of all I never disputed any biblical verses, I merely said they were useless in blog debates. Secondly, Christians interpret different verses differently. For example, some think the wine (or grape juice) is literally transformed into the blood of Christ and the bread (or wafer) the actual body of Christ during holy communion. Others Christians think that it is figurative. To give one example. Then there is the fact that many of the people you are discussing issues with are not Christian at all, so the bible verses are meaninless for them, and certainly do not further any arguments.
October 24th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
>>Wendell,
Your knowledge of history must stop on February 3, 1913.
When I spoke about presidents I was familiar with, I was referring to my earlier statement that I was only going as far back as presidents under whom I had paid federal taxes. Reagan was president when I got my first job.
Also, Christians accept the Bible as the word of God. You did not.
First of all I never disputed any biblical verses, I merely said they were useless in blog debates. Secondly, Christians interpret different verses differently. For example, some think the wine (or grape juice) is literally transformed into the blood of Christ and the bread (or wafer) the actual body of Christ during holy communion. Others Christians think that it is figurative. To give one example. Then there is the fact that many of the people you are discussing issues with are not Christian at all, so the bible verses are meaninless for them, and certainly do not further any arguments.
Posted by Um Cara<<
So then, why are you not familiar with the history of the United States before and after February 3, 1913?
Do you realize that your obtaining employment during the Reagan presidency may have been directly affected by Reagan’s enormous tax cuts, which lead to the highest sustained growth in the economy in history?
Did you know that the citizens of the USA self-identified as 79.8% CHRISTIAN in 2001?
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States )
With no intention of insulting any minorities, I will include Bible quotes in my postings, as they are typically very compelling to the vast majority of Americans.
Even moreso if the quotation is from the Old Testament, as Christianity, Judaism and Islam have a commonality.
October 24th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Um cara
If I might interupt your argument to give my opinion. I don’t claim to be overly educated so take it for what it’s worth.
The way I see Obama aproaching socialism as compared to tax plans of the past is… Reagans tax plan did not tax some people and then give it to people who did not work or pay taxes. If you wanted a tax return you had to work. Obama will give a tax return to people who do not even work.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Hey Dennis,
I understand where you are coming from, and you make a much stronger argument than Wendell did.
However, it is not true that people who don’t pay taxes will get a refund. Pretty much everybody pays federal taxes.
If you work, you pay FICA and Medicare taxes (and you pay income tax if your deductions don’t fully offset your income).
If you buy stuff like gasoline, alcohol, or cigarettes, you pay federal taxes on that stuff.
If you buy stuff from corporations, those corporations are federally taxed and they pass those taxes down to the folks who buy that stuff.
So, anyone who works or buy stuff (or does both) pays federal taxes, even if they happen to have a low enough income not to pay federal income taxes.
(I left out all of the state and local taxes that pretty much everyone pays just to keep on topic to federal taxes, but certainly people pay sales taxes, property taxes, etc…)
October 24th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I’m not a scholar of history, but I am reasonably well educated in history, and have done a bit of reading. Would you mind explaining what you are talking about?
Do you realize that Obama’s tax plan is to return the top two marginal rates to Reagan’s level?
Are you aware than Reagan had to back off of his tax cuts?
Are you aware that Reagan raised payroll taxes?
And, mostly, I got my job because I hassled the manager of the store I wanted to work at so many times his wife eventually made him hire me.
Yes. And though wikipedia is correct in this instance, in the future you might want to use a higher quality source. Wikipedia stinks as a reference
Knock yourself out, you have my permission to continue, if that’s what your looking for. But, honestly, you don’t need it – it’s a free country. Quote the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Satanic Bible, the back of your cereal box, whatever floats your boat.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
>>So then, why are you not familiar with the history of the United States before and after February 3, 1913?
I’m not a scholar of history, but I am reasonably well educated in history, and have done a bit of reading. Would you mind explaining what you are talking about?
Do you realize that your obtaining employment during the Reagan presidency may have been directly affected by Reagan’s enormous tax cuts, which lead to the highest sustained growth in the economy in history?
Do you realize that Obama’s tax plan is to return the top two marginal rates to Reagan’s level?
Are you aware than Reagan had to back off of his tax cuts?
Are you aware that Reagan raised payroll taxes?
Did you know that the citizens of the USA self-identified as 79.8% CHRISTIAN in 2001?
Yes. And . Wikipedia stinks as a reference
With no intention of insulting any minorities, I will include Bible quotes in my postings, as they are typically very compelling to the vast majority of Americans.
Knock yourself out, you have my permission to continue, if that’s what your looking for. But, honestly, you don’t need it – it’s a free country. Quote the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Satanic Bible, the back of your cereal box, whatever floats your boat.
Posted by Um Cara<>I’m not a scholar of history,<>And, mostly, I got my job because I hassled the manager of the store I wanted to work at so many times his wife eventually made him hire me.<>though wikipedia is correct in this instance, in the future you might want to use a higher quality source<>Knock yourself out, you have my permission to continue, if that’s what your looking for. But, honestly, you don’t need it – it’s a free country. Quote the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Satanic Bible, the back of your cereal box, whatever floats your boat.<<
Thank you for recognizing my First Amendment rights. There may be hope for you yet.
Usually, fresh water is what floats my boat, but once in a while I do use saltwater.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Oh by the way…the deficit quadrupled during the Reagan administration, and 9 members of his administration were indicted in the Iran Contra Affair. Even that conservative icon Lt. Col. Oliver North (whom I still think betrayed his uniform by taking the rap) was convicted and should have gone to prison except for an inept Justice Dept
October 24th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Why are people complaining about the money spent on Palin’s clothes and makeup?
What is it that Barack always says? This is just a distraction from the issues.
Funny how the distractions pop up when BO traipses back to Hawaii. Yeah, it’s funny that the slam Palin agenda kicks into high gear.
Where’s the big fuss over the DNC spending 150K on Grecian Columns for BO’s
DNC speech decorations?? Or the mult-million dollar propaganda informercial he’s contracted for on Wednesday.
Yeah, he can get his message out — unchallenged. To the tune of what was it? 3 Million dollars for 30 minutes?
Ha! What a joke.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Um cara
Good point, never thought about looking at taxs on gas and such as the same as taking the taxes out of my paycheck. But I still think that people who do not work should get a tax refund.
Those people who do not work may still be paying federal tax on gas and such, BUT those taxs go to federal highway funds and other such sevices provided by the government. So if you give those people their tax money back, they are paying nothing for the services they recieve. ( roads, firefighters, police, schools etc.) So I still don’t agree that non-working people who pay taxes when purchasing things deserve a portion of someone elses income. Besides if they are not working they are probably getting some form of government assistance already.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
To cheer up our right wing friends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03fcGelz8Hw
October 24th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Much has been made of the “Lobster Lunch” that never happened – except in the imagination of the person trying to pass the poison. In reality, Michelle Obama was never at the hotel in question on the day in question. Verify it for yourself, I learned about the e-Rumor at truthorfiction.com.
October 25th, 2008 at 1:07 am
“Good point, never thought about looking at taxs on gas and such as the same as taking the taxes out of my paycheck. But I still think that people who do not work should get a tax refund.
Those people who do not work may still be paying federal tax on gas and such, BUT those taxs go to federal highway funds and other such sevices provided by the government. So if you give those people their tax money back, they are paying nothing for the services they recieve. ( roads, firefighters, police, schools etc.) So I still don’t agree that non-working people who pay taxes when purchasing things deserve a portion of someone elses income. Besides if they are not working they are probably getting some form of government assistance already.”
Did you know that low income individuals who DO work are often eligible for EXTRA money above and beyond a ‘refund’ of the amount they have paid over in income taxes? It is known as Earned Income Credit and low income families with dependant children are eligible to receive it. It’s THOUSANDS of dollars MORE than what they paid into income taxes for the year. Some employees that I know who have several children receive in excess of $5,000 per year for this “Earned Income Credit” which comes from the Internal Revenue Service, just like the tax refund checks.
October 25th, 2008 at 6:22 am
Here is more information about the Earned Income Credit:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-01-16-earned-income-credit_N.htm
October 25th, 2008 at 6:27 am
GOV. PALIN has learn fast. Spend big and lie about being champs for the middle class. Come on AMERICA! They claim OBAMA is elite but who owns 7 houses? That pals around with the likes of MR. LIBBY. All that money on clothes and the working class people suffer. Their preaching at rallies sounds like hitler and we all know what happen their. Where is the unity? Whose AMERICA? Middle AMERICA, seems alot of folks are sick of the GOP. CONSERVITED AMERICANS! You want to keep alot of folks in the dark ages by being robots without ? and the common folk get less and less. Also submit to a right wing church that witch hunts others views and the right wing talk raido that spews out NAZI ideals, he is a triator, unAMERICAN, is he or she an AMERICAN. Right wing thinking has ruin or nation and we need a change. The goverment can spy on us, tap our phones, google our homes. If we keep on going down this path the death camps will be next.
October 25th, 2008 at 9:56 am
She should have spent the money on an english course. So that she would be able to form sentences properly(GRAMMATICALLY). Oke Pete!
October 25th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Angela said,
Umm.. Yes, Angela. That is what we have been talking about.
October 25th, 2008 at 11:40 am
You know this is really incredible. Obama is touted as the great uniter, and yet I don’t think I have ever seen people more divided. Everyone calling everyone else names. These people are Nazi’s, those people are racists. And argue about the dumbest things. Like all that money on clothes while the middle class suffers. Steve, the GOP paid for the clothes and will be auctioning them off after the election, with the proceeds going to charity.
And yes ANGELA, I am aware of the earned income credit. You mentioned you know several employees that recieve it. That is a key word to me,EMPLOYEE. If people are working and need help fine, but I don’t think people should be rewarded for sitting at home and doing nothing. If you have to work at McDonalds and don’t make enough to support your family, OK, your trying. But a plan that gives people a bonus check at the end of the year for doing nothing, is not a plan to stimulate a work force.
October 25th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Angela, When bush sent you a stimulus check did you complain? That was wealth RE-Distribution.
October 25th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
“Umm.. Yes, Angela. That is what we have been talking about.”
No you haven’t. You’ve been discussing a PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM, not Earned Income Credit. These are two COMPLETELY separate things. A progressive tax system is a system in which those who make more money are taxed at a higher percentage of their income.
Earned income credit is money that’s GIVEN to low income individuals based on WHAT THEIR SALARY is. This is not a TAX of their salary. Look at what the IRS says:
“For families eligible for the maximum it’s almost a quarter of their income,” said David R. Williams, IRS director of Electronic Tax Administration and Refundable Credits.
That means that low income individuals who are eligible for the maximum can have a QUARTER OF THEIR INCOME (that’s income they’ve already used for their expenses) sent to them in the form of EIC. That means that someone who will be getting the maximum of $4716 EIC for that year earned $18,864 (or less) at their job. In Washington State, where I live, the minimum wage is $8.07. People who work a full time, minimum wage job make a yearly salary of $16,785.60.
This person ALSO gets their tax refund dollars sent back to them; EIC is NOT a tax refund. EIC is separate. This is free money of up to a quarter of their income that’s sent to them each year simply because they are low income.
Let’s use the example of someone who has a high income getting EIC…maybe you will understand it better. Let’s say you, Um Cara, made $100,000 this year. Let’s say that you got the highest available tax refund back for what you paid into the system. THEN, let’s say you were GIVEN $25,000 OVER AND ABOVE your tax refund just as a “kiss” from the government. That’s what Earned Income Credit is.
It’s NOT a refund of money paid into taxes. It’s OUR tax money simply being GIVEN to families who are low income, just because they are low income. And that’s already been going on for decades. How much more of your money do you want to give away to low income families. How much more should they have of your money?
October 25th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
From the article I linked earlier:
“Congress originally approved the tax credit legislation in 1975. For tax year 2005, more than 22 million taxpayers received over $41 billion through the EITC credit, an average credit of $1,797, the IRS said. For tax year 2006, 22.4 million taxpayers received $43.7 billion as of last November. But only about 75% of those eligible claim this benefit, the agency says.”
Notice they call this a “benefit”? That’s 43.7 BILLION dollars of your tax money going to low income families ALREADY. How many more billions do you want to give them?
October 25th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Angela,
Yes, obviously earned income tax credit is an existing tax credit, Obama has other tax credits he wishes to add (as does McCain, for that matter). That is what my response to Dennis, here, was about – that these tax credits will offset various taxes people pay (not just income taxes, since low wage workers do not pay income tax).
I did not explicitly use the words ‘tax credit’, but I assumed everyone knew what we were talking about.
Clearly you did not, my apologies.
October 25th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Yeah, I didn’t understand, since I had thought you were actually talking about PAYING taxes:
“So, anyone who works or buy stuff (or does both) pays federal taxes, even if they happen to have a low enough income not to pay federal income taxes.”
Earned Income Credit is not a tax payment by low income families. It’s free money that’s handed over to low income families simply because they are low income. People are often confused because it’s called “Earned Income” credit. This simply means that low income families can receive a percentage of what their wages were (not their taxes)…this is money they’ve ALREADY TAKEN HOME AND SPENT…from the government as money free and clear that they can take home and SPEND AGAIN. That means they get this money TWICE. Once when they earn it and take it home in their paycheck and once again when the government sends them their yearly check.
October 25th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Angela,
As mentioned before, everyone pays federal, state, and local taxes. Read my previous post to Dennis in this thread.
I won’t beat a dead horse about how it is not money being given away, but yes, I agree it is established U.S. tax policy. Both Obama and McCain have plans to extend tax credits.
I am an expatriate living in Brazil. I have a real appreciation for the value American citizens get for the tax dollars paid, compared to elsewhere in the world. I do not feel Americans are overtaxed, and I don’t have a problem offsetting the many taxes these folks pay who you use in your example (who make 17K). I would say they are using that 17K just to get by, folks making 250K+ have a significant amount of discretionary income, and can certainly afford to pay a slightly greater share of the tax burden than they currently pay.
Remember, we are talking about raising the top two marginal rates to Reagan levels. I think folks making 250K+ can manage that.
October 25th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Angela,
For the love of God, I know what a freaking tax credit is. They aren’t exactly a new idea. My point is that a tax credit is not a give away. People are paying various taxes, these tax credits offset those taxes. It is not an exact science (people don’t have to itemize the various other taxes they pay), but then again the standard deduction is not an exact science either.
October 25th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I suppose the question is how much more must we give the low income families? They are already getting up to $5,000 every year. A portion of this is their Federal Income Tax refund and a portion of this is “free money” that they’re handed by the government every year simply for being low income.
Sure, they might pay sales tax at Wal Mart and IF they own a home they pay property tax. However, what percentage of low income families (those at minimum wage) actually own a home and are paying property taxes? Because I’ve worked with minimum wage employees for 20 years I can tell you that the percentage is very slim.
These people are paying minimal taxes (if their state has an income tax, they are getting a lot of this money back as a refund as well as their federal income tax refund) and they’re “benefiting” by thousands of dollars a year in money that’s sent to them from the Federal Government.
Whether people making over $250,000 per year can “afford” to do this is not the question. The question is why should they be required to give even more? Quite a few people making this amount worked their way up from the bottom. When I was a minimum wage employee, I didn’t get EIC because I did not have a minor child. Many people who have worked their way up were not able to benefit from some of these programs. Now, they have to pay into them. How is that fair?
October 25th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
P.S. I grew up in a low income, single parent home who got EIC and I KNOW how much money we actually paid out in taxes. We didn’t own our home and my mom got her full tax refund back as well as EIC. Our “taxes” that we paid…sales tax on non food items! Food is not taxed here in Washington. That is the extent of the taxes that my low income family paid into the system. And we benefited from EIC.
October 25th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Low income families who actually have a car in my state pay the $35 a year for their license tabs. That’s another tax that low income families might pay…IF they own a car.
October 25th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Angela,
No, they have paid other government taxes, it is not ‘free money’
I suppose any of them who own a home or are renting are paying property tax. Or do you not think property tax is built into the cost of rent?
Assuming they have no state or federal income tax burden, they are still paying taxes:
1. Excise taxes ( the big ones are gas, alcohol, tobacco)
2. state sales tax
3. city sales tax
4. FICA
5. Medicaid
6. corporations are taxed, and build the cost of that tax into their products, which are paid by the consumer
7. Home Property tax (whether they own or rent)
8. Other property tax (some cities tax cars, for example)
That’s off the top of my head, so I don’t buy your argument that there are legions of people without a tax burden.
I’m sorry your parents didn’t give you the life is not always fair lecture, but life is not always fair. I never had any kids, but I sure paid a lot of property taxes when I lived in the U.S., and in my state those taxes went to pay for other people’s kids to go to school. There are some people who get popped on a minor drug charge, and then have difficulty finding a good job because of their record. There are some people who do drugs, don’t get caught, and later become Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees.
The bottom line is, the U.S. requires money to function, it gathers that money from it’s citizens in the form of taxes, those who can afford to pay it should do so.
October 25th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Angela,
I just wrote out a long response, and it got caught up in the spam filter of this site. It might show up later, not going to try again.
Anyway, you are wrong that low income people do not pay taxes, you are not looking at the total universe of tax burden.
Maybe my post will show up later, it goes into much detail about this topic.
October 25th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I will wait to see if it shows up, Um Cara. :)
Like I said, my family WAS a low income family and I am well aware how much we paid for taxes. It was minimal, at best. I have worked with minimum wage employees (including many families) for 20 years. I know what the tax burdens are on these low income people. There’s not much being paid out for taxes and they are benefiting greatly from money that higher income people are paying into the system.
But thank you for your responses. It has been good chatting with you here. :)
October 25th, 2008 at 5:04 pm