Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I believe the right answer depends on your definition of family. If yourselves, who knows? If your kids or your grandkids, then you need to think about our staggering deficits.
So--if you're scared for future generations you may have to swallow hard, overlook their (imho) grotesque social agenda, and vote Republican. That's what I'm wrestling with now.
The Romney/Ryan plan to continue to slash taxes for the richest segment of the population while cutting back on the parts of government that allow an economy to thrive are not going to help reduce the deficit, so you don't have to vote Republican.
Anonymous wrote:Here are the tax rates if you want to calculate your new taxes without the Bush Tax cuts (based on taxable income):
Pre-Bush Tax Cuts /(What the Dems want):
$0 to $25,750 = 15%
$25,750 to $62,450 = 28% + $3,862
$62,450 to $130,250 = 31% + $14,138
$130,250 to $283,150 = 36% + $35,156 $3,862.50 + 25,750
$283,150+ = 39.6% +$90,200
Bush Tax Cuts (Current Rates)
$0 to $8,500 = 10%
$8,500 to $34,500 = 15% + $850
$34,500 to $83,600 = 25% + $4,750
$83,600 to $174,400 = 28% + $17,025
$174,400 to $379,150 = 33% + $42,449
$379,150+ = 35% + $110,016
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Romney.
Failure to extend the Bush tax cuts could cost you $800-$1000/month, maybe more. And Dems have fought the extension of these cuts.
Obama has always talked about preserving the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, generally assumed to be either $200K or $300K. So don't worry about this.
Anonymous wrote:Romney.
Failure to extend the Bush tax cuts could cost you $800-$1000/month, maybe more. And Dems have fought the extension of these cuts.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I believe the right answer depends on your definition of family. If yourselves, who knows? If your kids or your grandkids, then you need to think about our staggering deficits.
So--if you're scared for future generations you may have to swallow hard, overlook their (imho) grotesque social agenda, and vote Republican. That's what I'm wrestling with now.
The Romney/Ryan plan to continue to slash taxes for the richest segment of the population while cutting back on the parts of government that allow an economy to thrive are not going to help reduce the deficit, so you don't have to vote Republican.
I guess everyone is rich because everyones getting a tax break under romney
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I believe the right answer depends on your definition of family. If yourselves, who knows? If your kids or your grandkids, then you need to think about our staggering deficits.
So--if you're scared for future generations you may have to swallow hard, overlook their (imho) grotesque social agenda, and vote Republican. That's what I'm wrestling with now.
The Romney/Ryan plan to continue to slash taxes for the richest segment of the population while cutting back on the parts of government that allow an economy to thrive are not going to help reduce the deficit, so you don't have to vote Republican.
Anonymous wrote:I believe the right answer depends on your definition of family. If yourselves, who knows? If your kids or your grandkids, then you need to think about our staggering deficits.
So--if you're scared for future generations you may have to swallow hard, overlook their (imho) grotesque social agenda, and vote Republican. That's what I'm wrestling with now.
Anonymous wrote:I've only scanned this thread because what each candidate promises is really a bunch of hot air, both ability to deliver and the typical questionable assumptions used to make the numbers work.
I believe the right answer depends on your definition of family. If yourselves, who knows? If your kids or your grandkids, then you need to think about our staggering deficits.
A B.U. economist recently presented data at an assembly of public finance experts. His conclusion, when adding state/local to federal deficits, gets us already to 12% of GDP.
Our problems may already be worse than that of any other developed country.
So--if you're scared for future generations you may have to swallow hard, overlook their (imho) grotesque social agenda, and vote Republican. That's what I'm wrestling with now.
Anyway, that's my viewfinder, and I find the rest to be just noise.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The economy does better under democratic presidents. The imaginary benefit of Romney's tax cuts (which I doubt would happen as advertised) won't matter if the economy is in the crapper. Plus, his tax cuts will necessitate government constriction, which means all jobs in our area will take a hit (not just gov't employees, but goods and services, education, real estate, etc). Unless you are wealthy, it's no contest that you need to vote for Obama.
I disagree, romney is attempting to start getting the private sector to hire. Traditionally The private sector employs more people.
How? By cutting taxes for the wealthy?
Because Bush did that and he's who caused this mess in the first place.
Data on economic growth under presidents since the Great Depression: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html
First off you are listing a source of an OP-ED piece on the crazy left wing new york times.
HERE is a partisan analysis of Romney vs Obama. Note that Romney cuts taxes FOR ALL not just the rich.
"Romney: Would reduce each of the Bush-era income tax rates by 20%. So the top rate would fall to 28% and the bottom rate would fall to 8%."
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/07/news/economy/tax-obama-romney/index.html?iid=HP_LN
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This question only matters if you live in Virginia.
Sent too soon. I meant to say add that MD will vote Obama no matter how you vote.