Keeping track of change

This is a very good website that has listed 500 campaign promises that Barack Obama made.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
The amount of thought that went into creating a comprehensive plan to change the way our government functions is really impressive. You really don't see very much reporting from the media like this. I sincerely hope that the Obama administration tries to accomplish this list of goals.
Here is one proposal that I think is excellent.
#24
Eliminating Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000. Barack Obama will eliminate all
income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors
– saving them an average of $1,400 a year-- and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file
an income tax return at all.

That is a great site,Sparks. I also like the part where they tally up the lies made during the campaign. No surprise that the righties win that contest by a landslide. Check it out @ Statements we say are Pants on Fire!

Isn't #4 counter to #1?
In #1 the limit for singles is 200k, but for married only 250k. A marriage penalty of 150k.

Bill B wrote:

Isn't #4 counter to #1?
In #1 the limit for singles is 200k, but for married only 250k. A marriage penalty of 150k.

I noticed that also

Notice how he also made sure no one in Congress would be hit by this. God forbid the overpaid people in Congress get hit with higher taxes.

mike3775 wrote:

Bill B wrote:

Isn't #4 counter to #1?
In #1 the limit for singles is 200k, but for married only 250k. A marriage penalty of 150k.

I noticed that also

Notice how he also made sure no one in Congress would be hit by this. God forbid the overpaid people in Congress get hit with higher taxes.

Many of the members of Congress are wealthy and have substantial business interests. Taxes are based on total income, not just the salary they receive from Congress. I disagree with your statement that no one in Congress will be hit by raising the taxes on dividends and capital gains from 15% to 20%. Most would pay more taxes under this proposal.
Here is a link that lists the wealthiest Senators.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/senators.finances/
Please feel free to post any links you might have to back up your claim.

Now come on Sparks, you really believe that Congress will approve a tax hike where they will take a hit?

I bet they will insert so many loopholes(like they always do) that they will somehow be exempt from those tax hikes

Let them pass a simple few pages tax increase if they really want to make sure the "rich" get to pay more. Remember the first stimulus package that failed? It was a small bill(only a few pages long), yet the one that passed was over 300 pages(IIRC) long and was so convoluted that many are still trying to figure out exactly what was passed today.

Make a loophole free tax bill, thats all I want, but I am only dreaming.


And how I had to laugh at how some claim they are worth less than $100,000. Yeah ok, like I am supposed to believe a Senator who makes $154,000 is worth less than what he/she is making.

My maybe they need to declare bankruptcy to get out of all that massive debt right?

Great site Sparks, thanks.

party42 wrote:

Great site Sparks, thanks.

Thanks for the compliment,Party. This list of promises is so lengthy that it takes quite a bit of time to read the descriptions. There are at least 10 different recommendations that deal with improving treatment of veterans in this country,starting with #104. I have heard time and time again from vets that I worked with how poorly they are treated by VA administration and hospitals. It's refreshing to see a President who is concerned about treatment of our vets after they come home from serving our country. I believe that this kind of change has been needed in Washington for many years now. It's great to see a President give more than lip service to helping our vets!

sparks wrote:

mike3775 wrote:

Notice how he also made sure no one in Congress would be hit by this. God forbid the overpaid people in Congress get hit with higher taxes.

Many of the members of Congress are wealthy and have substantial business interests. Taxes are based on total income, not just the salary they receive from Congress. I disagree with your statement that no one in Congress will be hit by raising the taxes on dividends and capital gains from 15% to 20%. Most would pay more taxes under this proposal.
Here is a link that lists the wealthiest Senators.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/senators.finances/

Please feel free to post any links you might have to back up your claim.

No such luck, sparks.

mike3775 wrote:

Now come on Sparks, you really believe that Congress will approve a tax hike where they will take a hit?

I bet they will insert so many loopholes(like they always do) that they will somehow be exempt from those tax hikes

Just more unsubstantiated opinion. Let's see anything that supports your contention that Congress provides "loopholes" that exempt its members... anything at all.

mike3775 wrote:

And how I had to laugh at how some claim they are worth less than $100,000. Yeah ok, like I am supposed to believe a Senator who makes $154,000 is worth less than what he/she is making.

Do you understand what "net worth" means?

Capital gains taxes are only paid when the gains are realized. You could jump capital gains to 37% and nobody would pay a dime unless they sold assets and realized their gains.
And trust me, there are loopholes galore without creating new ones.

Quote :

No. 17: Require economic justification for tax cuts
Adopt the economic substance doctrine, a policy that states that tax cuts must have significant economic justification, as a federal law.

No. 18: Provide option for a pre-filled-out tax form
Will direct the Internal Revenue Service to "give taxpayers the option of a pre-filled tax form to verify, sign and return to the IRS or online. This will eliminate the need for Americans to hire expensive tax preparers and to gather information that the federal government already has on file."

These two really scare me. How often have we seen reports about the inaccuracy of the IRS's asistance? And now they're gonna send me one to just sign and return? I don't think so.
And why in the world would the president think that a special reason was needed for tax cuts?

I do like this one:

Quote :

No. 111: Allow all veterans back into the Veterans Administration

I was told by the VA that I wasn't disabled because I had a job; therefore they wouldn't provide services for me.
I have since had one operation, two cortisone injections and countless hours of pyhsical therapy. I am trying to save enough money so that I may take the 6-8 weeks of sick leave for another operation.
Selfish? Maybe, but they told us service related injuries would be taken care of.

Bill B wrote:

Quote :

No. 17: Require economic justification for tax cuts
Adopt the economic substance doctrine, a policy that states that tax cuts must have significant economic justification, as a federal law.

No. 18: Provide option for a pre-filled-out tax form
Will direct the Internal Revenue Service to "give taxpayers the option of a pre-filled tax form to verify, sign and return to the IRS or online. This will eliminate the need for Americans to hire expensive tax preparers and to gather information that the federal government already has on file."

These two really scare me. How often have we seen reports about the inaccuracy of the IRS's asistance? And now they're gonna send me one to just sign and return? I don't think so.
And why in the world would the president think that a special reason was needed for tax cuts?

Obama and his staff came up with that as a reaction to the tax cuts GWB and the Republican congress enacted in 2001. The country has the largest budget deficit in the nation's history and there is no evidence that the Republican tax cuts accomplished anything besides allowing the richest 1% of the country to pay less taxes than they already were paying. In other words, the country as a whole received no benefit from the tax cut. If it hadn't been enacted, we would have a far smaller budget deficit that we do now.
Here is my link to support my opinion.
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm
A new study released today by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Children’s Defense Fund reveals for the first time who stands to benefit from the 2001-enacted Bush tax cuts in each year from 2001 through 2010. Among the key findings:

Over the ten-year period, the richest Americans—the best-off one percent—are slated to receive tax cuts totaling almost half a trillion dollars. The $477 billion in tax breaks the Bush administration has targeted to this elite group will average $342,000 each over the decade.
By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent—whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million. Their tax-cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each. Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go just 1.4 million taxpayers.
Although the rich have already received a hefty down payment on their Bush tax cuts—averaging just under $12,000 each this year—80 percent of their windfall is scheduled to come from tax changes that won’t take effect until after this year, mostly from items that phase in after 2005.

In contrast, the vast majority of taxpayers have already received most of their tax cuts from the 2001 legislation.

For the four out of five families and individuals making less than $73,000 this year, three-quarters of the tax cuts—averaging about $350 this year—are already in place.
Tax cuts for the 19 percent of taxpayers making between $73,000 and $356,000 this year will grow a little over the next four years as the cuts in the upper tax rates continue to kick in, but then will dwindle thereafter. By 2010, the tax cuts for this group will be no bigger as a share of income than they are now.
As a result, freezing the Bush tax cuts at their 2002 levels would have little or no effect on 99 percent of the taxpayers, whose tax cuts are already mostly or completely “frozen.” Only the best-off one percent of the taxpayers will receive significant additional tax cuts if the rest of the Bush tax program continues to be implemented.
After seeing the actual impact of these tax cuts, can you understand why a Obama felt the need to
want to see the justification for a tax cut?

But the underlying assumptions are so wrong. The gov't isn't entitled to my, your or our money.
The goal should be to minimize spending and taxes.
In other words, if he suddenly finds himself with a surplus (for whatever reason) he needs a reason to give it back?
And to contrast your cite, what do the poorest 20% pay? What do the aforementioned top 1% pay as a percentage of revenue received by the irs?
The claim that the Bush tax cuts didn't help the poor is misleading. The poor don't pay taxes, quite the contrary; they are subsidized by the eic and other mechanisms.

#251
Create scholarships to recruit new teachers
"Will create new Teacher Service Scholarships that will cover four years of undergraduate or two years of graduate teacher education, including high-quality alternative programs for mid-career recruits in exchange for teaching for at least four years in a high-need field or location."

I really like this program. There is a shortage of teachers qualified to teach science and math. I view this as a kind of GI bill to help draw people into the teaching field by paying for their college education.

Bill B wrote:

I do like this one:

Quote :

No. 111: Allow all veterans back into the Veterans Administration

I was told by the VA that I wasn't disabled because I had a job; therefore they wouldn't provide services for me.
I have since had one operation, two cortisone injections and countless hours of pyhsical therapy. I am trying to save enough money so that I may take the 6-8 weeks of sick leave for another operation.
Selfish? Maybe, but they told us service related injuries would be taken care of.

First of all, thanks for your service. I don't think what you are asking for is "selfish" at all. You lived up to your side of the contract, so the government should live up to its side.

Since Mirage has been talking about some of the abuses going on in the credit card industry, I thought I'd check the Obamameter. He has two ideas concerning credit cards.
No. 28: Create a consumer-friendly credit card rating system
"The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will assess the degree to which credit cards meet consumer-friendly standards … (such as) the underwriting standards used to issue the card, the card's interest rate spread between the introductory rate and the maximum rate allowed, and
transaction fees. ... Credit card companies will be required to display the rating on all application and contract materials, enabling consumers to quickly understand all of the major provisions of a credit card without having to rely exclusively on fine print in lengthy documents."
>>More

No. 33: Establish a credit card bill of rights
The credit card bill of rights would "ban unilateral changes ... apply interest rate increases only to future debt ... prohibit interest on fees ... prohibit 'universal defaults' (whereby a credit card raises its rates because the consumer was late paying a different creditor ... require prompt and fair crediting of cardholder payments."

If you'll recall I started a list of my own.

You believe promises from politicians? Get real. He's not one of us he is one of them.

sparks wrote:

Since Mirage has been talking about some of the abuses going on in the credit card industry, I thought I'd check the Obamameter. He has two ideas concerning credit cards.
No. 28: Create a consumer-friendly credit card rating system
"The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will assess the degree to which credit cards meet consumer-friendly standards … (such as) the underwriting standards used to issue the card, the card's interest rate spread between the introductory rate and the maximum rate allowed, and
transaction fees. ... Credit card companies will be required to display the rating on all application and contract materials, enabling consumers to quickly understand all of the major provisions of a credit card without having to rely exclusively on fine print in lengthy documents."
>>More

No. 33: Establish a credit card bill of rights
The credit card bill of rights would "ban unilateral changes ... apply interest rate increases only to future debt ... prohibit interest on fees ... prohibit 'universal defaults' (whereby a credit card raises its rates because the consumer was late paying a different creditor ... require prompt and fair crediting of cardholder payments."

I love it. BLAME the credit card companies. Don't BLAME the person with 6 to 8 credit cards in his wallet maxed out. The temptation to charge something when you can't pay for it is the sole responsibility of the possessor of the credit card. Yes, let's invite MORE government intervention. Lets make an Obama Card.

Here ya go Lois.

party42 wrote:

Here ya go Lois.

I knew I have seen that graphic, but couldn't find it. Thanx

LoisLane wrote:

I love it. BLAME the credit card companies. Don't BLAME the person with 6 to 8 credit cards in his wallet maxed out. The temptation to charge something when you can't pay for it is the sole responsibility of the possessor of the credit card. Yes, let's invite MORE government intervention. Lets make an Obama Card.

Google 'balance transfer ripoffs'. Here's an example The Biggest Balance Transfer Rip-Off

Artie do you feel is the consumer to blame when overusing credit cards and getting themselves in trouble when the bill comes and they can't pay for what they wanted- which in turn get's them in deeper and deeper because they can't afford the payments/interest/possible finance charges that they agreed to when signing up for that card?

That's not to say that credit companies may stick it to the consumer, but hey they're in business to make money and if people are dumb enough to continually do business with them and rack up their bill, well then that's on them (the consumer)- no?

Ohhmama wrote:

Artie do you feel is the consumer to blame when overusing credit cards and getting themselves in trouble when the bill comes and they can't pay for what they wanted- which in turn get's them in deeper and deeper because they can't afford the payments/interest/possible finance charges that they agreed to when signing up for that card?

In those cases I agree wholeheartedly.

Quote :

That's not to say that credit companies may stick it to the consumer, but hey they're in business to make money and if people are dumb enough to continually do business with them and rack up their bill, well then that's on them (the consumer)- no?

It's one thing to make money,but it's a whole other thing when they mislead customers with restrictions and penalties that they bury in fine print. Every time I get one of those "changes to your account" letters from a bank I dread having to read through it to try and figure out exactly what these 'changes" mean to me.