Just the tiniest comment can betray you..

[stephanie]

I heard him say this..anyone else? what do you think?

Presidential Candidate Debate | 9/25 | Wil H

Posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 10:16:38 PM by Wil H

Jim Lehrer asked a question about how the respective candidates would alter their agenda as President in the light of the huge financial obligation of the bailout. Obama waffled about various things but then said "I'd still like to expand early education".

"Expand early eduction" ??

What does he actually mean by that, and why did single it out of all the items on his agenda?

Tonight he sent a little signal to his master that he was still the obedient servant.

Here's a clue. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge that he chaired in the mid 90's was a scheme to get public money and feed it to his friend and mentor, Communist terrorist, William Ayers for him to promote his radicalization of early childhood education.

He and Ayers collaborated for 4 years on this scheme. Ayers created the board and got Obama appointed Chairman, where he could then funnel funds to Ayers' schemes.

How did Ayers pick Obama for this task?

Obama and Ayers had been at college together in New York in the early 1980's where Ayers got two degrees in - Early Childhood Education.

Obama was at Columbia, Ayers was less than a quarter of a mile away at Bank Street College.

Despite what Obama claims, He has been a protege of the communist, unrepentant, America hating, Ayers since 1983 and obviously still has close ties.


used from the site..
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2091543/posts

[theHawk]

I laughed when I heard that answer from Obama. "Early childhood education" is one of the highest spending priorities? Since when are FEDERAL dollars used in early childhood education? Federal government should not be involved in education at all IMO, thats something that can, and already is funded by local taxes. All I could think was that he must be thinking of a federal youth education program based on communist ideals. Thats his biggest fucking priority?

[Psychoblues]

As other industrialized nations begin their educations at about age 3 or 4 I think it only prudent that this one do the same. That and more science, math and common civility will sustain us as a nation.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Mr. P]

The one that puzzles me is "95% of tax payers will get a tax cut".
I've heard him say this twice now.

Now, someone splain to me, just how is it possible to cut tax on 95% of tax payers and still implement all these grand social programs?

Oh, wait! He wants to shaft the corporations! Well hell since they will just pass the cost to consumers there is no cut at all is there? It's just a shell game. A back door to YOUR tax INCREASE.

Okay, never mind.

[No1tovote4]

I laughed when I heard that answer from Obama. "Early childhood education" is one of the highest spending priorities? Since when are FEDERAL dollars used in early childhood education? Federal government should not be involved in education at all IMO, thats something that can, and already is funded by local taxes. All I could think was that he must be thinking of a federal youth education program based on communist ideals. Thats his biggest fucking priority?
Since Bush and his NCLB legislation was passed without regard to the 10th Amendment.

[No1tovote4]

The one that puzzles me is "95% of tax payers will get a tax cut".
I've heard him say this twice now.

Now, someone splain to me, just how is it possible to cut tax on 95% of tax payers and still implement all these grand social programs?

Oh, wait! He wants to shaft the corporations! Well hell since they will just pass the cost to consumers there is no cut at all is there? It's just a shell game. A back door to YOUR tax INCREASE.

Okay, never mind.
You don't. Not without serious debt. Closing the loopholes doesn't pay for that kind of graft.

He outlines 850 Billion in spending in his giveaways. Then says he'll pay for it by "closing the loopholes" and by taxing corporations more.

There are some things he needs to learn.

1. Taxing corporations is taxing the people who buy their product, it is directly inflationary because it is passed directly to the consumer.

2. Such taxation is not "progressive" taxation as the product costs the same to the rich and the poor, it hurts the poor the most.

3. Such taxation only incentivizes more companies to leave, our taxation on corps already has driven too many of them away. Adding more is preposterous when taken with a healthy dose of reality. You can't keep jobs here if you tax them over to Ireland for gawds' sakes...

4. Tarrif taxes only do the same thing, they are not progressive and they hurt the poor the most.

[Psychoblues]

Sillyass economic theory.



You don't. Not without serious debt. Closing the loopholes doesn't pay for that kind of graft.

He outlines 850 Billion in spending in his giveaways. Then says he'll pay for it by "closing the loopholes" and by taxing corporations more.

There are some things he needs to learn.

1. Taxing corporations is taxing the people who buy their product, it is directly inflationary because it is passed directly to the consumer.

2. Such taxation is not "progressive" taxation as the product costs the same to the rich and the poor, it hurts the poor the most.

3. Such taxation only incentivizes more companies to leave, our taxation on corps already has driven too many of them away. Adding more is preposterous when taken with a healthy dose of reality. You can't keep jobs here if you tax them over to Ireland for gawds' sakes...

4. Tarrif taxes only do the same thing, they are not progressive and they hurt the poor the most.

As a small business owner I found taxes to be mostly beneficial to me. As my taxes increased my competitors could not or would not keep up. Sad but true and I could write you a book about it!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[No1tovote4]

Sillyass economic theory.




As a small business owner I found taxes to be mostly beneficial to me. As my taxes increased my competitors could not or would not keep up. Sad but true and I could write you a book about it!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:
Please. Write me a book. I'd love to hear how taxes passed through to the consumer are "progressive" in nature. And personal tax is not the same as corporate tax.

[Psychoblues]

You obviously don't understand civilization, nofucks.



Please. Write me a book. I'd love to hear how taxes passed through to the consumer are "progressive" in nature. And personal tax is not the same as corporate tax.

So, where do I start? I told you that I refuse with ABC and 2 + 2.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::salute:

[Joe Steel]

I heard him say this..anyone else? what do you think?

Presidential Candidate Debate | 9/25 | Wil H

Posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 10:16:38 PM by Wil H

Jim Lehrer asked a question about how the respective candidates would alter their agenda as President in the light of the huge financial obligation of the bailout. Obama waffled about various things but then said "I'd still like to expand early education".

"Expand early eduction" ??

What does he actually mean by that, and why did single it out of all the items on his agenda?

Tonight he sent a little signal to his master that he was still the obedient servant.

Here's a clue. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge that he chaired in the mid 90's was a scheme to get public money and feed it to his friend and mentor, Communist terrorist, William Ayers for him to promote his radicalization of early childhood education.



That's utterly ridiculous.

Education is the key to success. We've heard that from every point of the political spectrum for years. Trying to read more into another declaration of the idea is just crazy.

[Joe Steel]

You don't. Not without serious debt. Closing the loopholes doesn't pay for that kind of graft.

How do you know?

And what about the revenue potential in the untaxed income of the very wealthy? Have you considered what they could pay?


He outlines 850 Billion in spending in his giveaways. Then says he'll pay for it by "closing the loopholes" and by taxing corporations more.

There are some things he needs to learn.

1. Taxing corporations is taxing the people who buy their product, it is directly inflationary because it is passed directly to the consumer.

And here's what you need to learn.

Business taxes are not necessarily passed to consumers. The firm's market position may not allow it. Its competitors may not have been affected as much, or at all, by increased taxes so they won't their prices. Under those circumstances, the firm cannot raise its own prices.

[Abbey Marie]

You don't. Not without serious debt. Closing the loopholes doesn't pay for that kind of graft.

He outlines 850 Billion in spending in his giveaways. Then says he'll pay for it by "closing the loopholes" and by taxing corporations more.

There are some things he needs to learn.

1. Taxing corporations is taxing the people who buy their product, it is directly inflationary because it is passed directly to the consumer.

2. Such taxation is not "progressive" taxation as the product costs the same to the rich and the poor, it hurts the poor the most.

3. Such taxation only incentivizes more companies to leave, our taxation on corps already has driven too many of them away. Adding more is preposterous when taken with a healthy dose of reality. You can't keep jobs here if you tax them over to Ireland for gawds' sakes...

4. Tarrif taxes only do the same thing, they are not progressive and they hurt the poor the most.


Good post, N. What I always wonder, is why isn't this obvious to everyone?

[Abbey Marie]

How do you know?

And what about the revenue potential in the untaxed income of the very wealthy? Have you considered what they could pay?



And here's what you need to learn.

Business taxes are not necessarily passed to consumers. The firm's market position may not allow it. Its competitors may not have been affected as much, or at all, by increased taxes so they won't their prices. Under those circumstances, the firm cannot raise its own prices.

That's right, Joe. Countries outside the US won't have to raise their prices due to crazy liberal over taxation, thus enabling them to out-compete US companies who will have to increase theirs, due to crazy liberal over taxation. Sounds like a plan. :rolleyes:

[red states rule]

How do you know?

And what about the revenue potential in the untaxed income of the very wealthy? Have you considered what they could pay?



And here's what you need to learn.

Business taxes are not necessarily passed to consumers. The firm's market position may not allow it. Its competitors may not have been affected as much, or at all, by increased taxes so they won't their prices. Under those circumstances, the firm cannot raise its own prices.

Joey, the "rich" are paying MORE in taxes after the Bush tax cut. They are now up to paying 40% of all federal income taxes

Meanwhile, the bottom 50% are paying around 3% of the federal income taxes

Obama is continuong to tell 2 lies - he will cut taxes for 95% of taxpayers; and only those making over $250,000 will pay higher taxes. Both are easy to prove they are lies, and he will take uis back to the 70's when he had to endure the Carter economy

Companies will always pass any added cost of doing business onto to SOMEONE. They will either raise prices, reduce their workforce, or move to a cheaper location

[Joe Steel]

That's right, Joe. Countries outside the US won't have to raise their prices due to crazy liberal over taxation, thus enabling them to out-compete US companies who will have to increase theirs, due to crazy liberal over taxation. Sounds like a plan. :rolleyes:


The taxes might have to come from the shareholders exorbitant profits.

Too bad.

[Joe Steel]

Good post, N. What I always wonder, is why isn't this obvious to everyone?

Because it's obviously simplistic nonsense.

[Joe Steel]

Joey, the "rich" are paying MORE in taxes after the Bush tax cut. They are now up to paying 40% of all federal income taxes

Meanwhile, the bottom 50% are paying around 3% of the federal income taxes

So?


Obama is continuong to tell 2 lies - he will cut taxes for 95% of taxpayers; and only those making over $250,000 will pay higher taxes. Both are easy to prove they are lies,

Have at it, then.

[red states rule]

So?



Have at it, then.

So, why should they have to pay more? I take it having only 1% of workers paying 40% of the income taxes is not enough for you


Obama's lie #1

He says he will cut taxes for 95% of the taxpayers. How can he do that when 1% of the folks pay 40% of the taxes and they are the he wants to pay more

Then you have about 35% of all workers who currently pay zero federal income taxes.

With that many taxpayers out of the equation, it is impossible for him to cut taxes for 95%

Obam lie #2

He statement that only those who make more then $250,000 is a lie because his plan to take the cap off SS will raise taxes for those making over $102,000

His increase of the dividend tax will hit retired folks regardless of their income since most reired people make their entire income off dividends

His capital gains tax increase will hit anyone with a 401K plan

His increase on the corporate tax is nothing more then a tax increase since companies will pass the added cost onto the their customers in higher prices

Or the compaines will lay off workers, curtail hiring, stop capital investments, or relocate to a cheaper location

Any way, it will hit the very people who Obama sais would not be effected

[Mr. P]

The taxes might have to come from the shareholders exorbitant profits.

Too bad.

Exorbitant? Profits? Do you mean dividends? If you think dividends are exorbitant it's obvious you've never owned stocks.

[Joe Steel]

Exorbitant? Profits? Do you mean dividends? If you think dividends are exorbitant it's obvious you've never owned stocks.

No, you idiot.

Some or all of the profits are distributed to shareholders. Dividends are the distribution of profits. (In point of fact, dividends can exceed profits, in which case the portion exceeding the profits is a return of capital.)

[Joe Steel]

So, why should they have to pay more? I take it having only 1% of workers paying 40% of the income taxes is not enough for you

They should pay more because paying more is what the community feel is equitable. That's what a progressive income tax is all about.


Obama's lie #1

He says he will cut taxes for 95% of the taxpayers. How can he do that when 1% of the folks pay 40% of the taxes and they are the he wants to pay more

A taxpayer is defined as someone who pays taxes. If Obama reduces the tax paid by 95% of all taxpayers, he's kept his promise.

[red states rule]

They should pay more because paying more is what the community feel is equitable. That's what a progressive income tax is all about.



A taxpayer is defined as someone who pays taxes. If Obama reduces the tax paid by 95% of all taxpayers, he's kept his promise.

What is "equitable"? 40% is not enough for you? Of course raising taxes on them will mean LESS revenue coming in to the government. Much like how history shows raising the capital gains tax has done everytime it has been raised

I see you ignored the examples showing Obama is lying when he says only those making $250,000/yr willsee an increase in their taxes

Once again Joey, you fumbled on Obama's lie to cut taxes on 95% of taxpayers. It is impossible for him to do it

[Mr. P]

No, you idiot.

Some or all of the profits are distributed to shareholders. Dividends are the distribution of profits. (In point of fact, dividends can exceed profits, in which case the portion exceeding the profits is a return of capital.)

LOL "ALL" profit is NEVER returned to shareholders. A portion determined by the BOD is, in the form of dividends. So? It ain't exorbitant. It's akin to interest in a savings account.

You really don't understand what you argue do you?

[red states rule]

LOL "ALL" profit is NEVER returned to shareholders. A portion determined by the BOD is, in the form of dividends. So? It ain't exorbitant. It's akin to interest in a savings account.

You really don't understand what you argue do you?

That is why he is a liberal

[Joe Steel]

What is "equitable"? 40% is not enough for you? Of course raising taxes on them will mean LESS revenue coming in to the government. Much like how history shows raising the capital gains tax has done everytime it has been raised

I see you ignored the examples showing Obama is lying when he says only those making $250,000/yr willsee an increase in their taxes

Once again Joey, you fumbled on Obama's lie to cut taxes on 95% of taxpayers. It is impossible for him to do it

Utter nonsense. I proved it beyond any doubt.

Reducing taxes for 95% of eveyone who pays taxes is easy. All he has to do is reduce one tax and not increase any other.

[red states rule]

Utter nonsense. I proved it beyond any doubt.

Reducing taxes for 95% of eveyone who pays taxes is easy. All he has to do is reduce one tax and not increase any other.

Joey, Obama is not only wanting to raise incomes taxes, but also dividend, SS payroll, capitag gaines, and corporate taxes

All of them will hit people making less then $250,000/yr

He is lying and so are you

[Joe Steel]

LOL "ALL" profit is NEVER returned to shareholders. A portion determined by the BOD is, in the form of dividends. So? It ain't exorbitant. It's akin to interest in a savings account.

You really don't understand what you argue do you?

You're an idiot.

Profit may or may not be returned in whole or in part.

Where do you get your nonsense?

Did you graduate from the School of Comic Books and Cereal Boxes?

[Joe Steel]

Joey, Obama is not only wanting to raise incomes taxes, but also dividend, SS payroll, capitag gaines, and corporate taxes

All of them will hit people making less then $250,000/yr

He is lying and so are you

But they won't affect 95% of all taxpayers. Most taxpayers are not affected by capital gains taxes or salary and wages above $102,000, etc.

[Mr. P]

Utter nonsense. I proved it beyond any doubt.

Reducing taxes for 95% of eveyone who pays taxes is easy. All he has to do is reduce one tax and not increase any other.

But that's NOT what he wants to do.

[red states rule]

But they won't affect 95% of all taxpayers. Most taxpayers are not affected by capital gains taxes or salary and wages above $102,000, etc.

Thank you for making my point

People who make less then $250,000/yr will PAY MORE in taxes

It is impossible for Obama to cut taxes on 95% of the folks

[Mr. P]

You're an idiot.

Profit may or may not be returned in whole or in part.

Where do you get your nonsense?

Did you graduate from the School of Comic Books and Cereal Boxes?

Okay Joe, give me one example of any U.S.corporation that has returned 100% of their profit to shareholders. Consider accounting practices before you make a fool of yer self again.

[Joe Steel]

Okay Joe, give me one example of any U.S.corporation that has returned 100% of their profit to shareholders. Consider accounting practices before you make a fool of yer self again.

I don't have an example. I don't have to have an example. It's not a logical impossibility so the absence of an example does not invalidate the assertion. For example, I can't name a single person who died in the World Trade Center. By your validation rule, that means it didn't happen.

You have to prove it cannot happen.

[Mr. P]

I don't have an example. I don't have to have an example. It's not a logical impossibility so the absence of an example does not invalidate the assertion. For example, I can't name a single person who died in the World Trade Center. By your validation rule, that means it didn't happen.

You have to prove it cannot happen.

I didn't think you could backup yer BS..that's okay I expected that.

I made no claim I need to backup..you did. Fool, you open yer mouth and insert yer foot a lot don't ya?

Run along now, Joey.

[Missileman]

Utter nonsense. I proved it beyond any doubt.

Reducing taxes for 95% of eveyone who pays taxes is easy. All he has to do is reduce one tax and not increase any other.

The point you keep missing is this: Any additional tax he places on corporations to pay for his reduced tax for 95% of taxpayers and to pay for this massive amount of spending he wants to do is going to be passed on to the consumers by way of higher prices. So a 2% reduction in income tax for the average American isn't going to help much when the cost of living increases 10% because prices soar. There really is no such thing as corporate taxes...one of the reasons they need to abolish our current tax system.

[Yurt]

I don't have an example. I don't have to have an example. It's not a logical impossibility so the absence of an example does not invalidate the assertion. For example, I can't name a single person who died in the World Trade Center. By your validation rule, that means it didn't happen.

You have to prove it cannot happen.

:lol:

don't outsmart yourself joe....

your logical fallacy is quite humerous....just because YOU cannot name a single person, does NOT mean you don't know that someone died in the WTC.

do actually know of any company that supports your position? no, you don't, you made it up. you outsmarted yourself, take two excedrin and don't call me in the morning

[Joe Steel]

:lol:

don't outsmart yourself joe....

your logical fallacy is quite humerous....just because YOU cannot name a single person, does NOT mean you don't know that someone died in the WTC.


That's the essence of what the other posted said.

[Joe Steel]

I didn't think you could backup yer BS..that's okay I expected that.

I made no claim I need to backup..you did.

Yes you did.

You said corporations cannot distribute 100% of profits.

Prove it.

[Joe Steel]

The point you keep missing is this: Any additional tax he places on corporations to pay for his reduced tax for 95% of taxpayers and to pay for this massive amount of spending he wants to do is going to be passed on to the consumers by way of higher prices.

Not necessarily.

I've already explained why. Read the thread.

[Mr. P]

Yes you did.

You said corporations cannot distribute 100% of profits.

Prove it.

No, I didn't say corporations cannot distribute 100% of profits. I said....


LOL "ALL" profit is NEVER returned to shareholders. A portion determined by the BOD is, in the form of dividends. So? It ain't exorbitant. It's akin to interest in a savings account.

You really don't understand what you argue do you?



The taxes might have to come from the shareholders exorbitant profits.

Too bad.

Now what shareholders exorbitant profits are you claiming exist?

[Missileman]

Not necessarily.

I've already explained why. Read the thread.

I've read the thread and your belief that corporations won't react to higher taxes with higher prices isn't grounded in reality.

[Joe Steel]

No, I didn't say corporations "cannot distribute 100% of profits," I said.... "ALL" profit is NEVER returned to shareholders."

There's a subtle difference but you're wrong. Profits aren't returned when the Board feels the firm can't achieve the return the individual shareholder can achieve. Typically, this happens in declining industries.


Now what shareholders exorbitant profits are you claiming exist?

Any well-managed firm should have some margin for a reduction in earnings per share to maintain market share. Those.

[Mr. P]

There's a subtle difference but you're wrong. Profits aren't returned when the Board feels the firm can't achieve the return the individual shareholder can achieve. Typically, this happens in declining industries.



Any well-managed firm should have some margin for a reduction in earnings per share to maintain market share. Those.

:laugh2: Try again Joe.

[SassyLady]

The taxes might have to come from the shareholders exorbitant profits.

Too bad.

Joe,

Let's use your theory of taxing the wealthy. Let's say you currently make $100/day and get to keep all your earnings. Then next year you make $200/day because you got a better job, better education; or whatever, and are asked to give the extra $100/day to your neighbor who is still making only $100/day. Are you saying this is OK with you?

[Joe Steel]

Joe,

Let's use your theory of taxing the wealthy. Let's say you currently make $100/day and get to keep all your earnings. Then next year you make $200/day because you got a better job, better education; or whatever, and are asked to give the extra $100/day to your neighbor who is still making only $100/day. Are you saying this is OK with you?

It's really a false dilemma. Bracket changes aren't that stark and shocking. However, yes, I have no problem with progressive taxes.

Now you answer a question. In a similar circumstance, would you give $50.00 of the increase to your neighbor or quit?

[Joe Steel]

:laugh2: Try again Joe.

Why try to improve on perfection?

[red states rule]

It's really a false dilemma. Bracket changes aren't that stark and shocking. However, yes, I have no problem with progressive taxes.

Now you answer a question. In a similar circumstance, would you give $50.00 of the increase to your neighbor or quit?

More proof tax cuts increase revenues. Of course the writer uses the word "unexpected" when talking about the increse of revenue to the government


WASHINGTON: Among the markets that say President George W. Bush is doing "a heck of a job," the one he can take the most satisfaction from is U.S. Treasury bills.

That is because an unexpected surge in tax receipts may pare the budget deficit by 39 percent to $150 billion this fiscal year, causing a relative scarcity of four-week, three-month and six-month bills. The result is the biggest bull market for Treasury bills since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, drove investors to the safety of the securities.

Individual and corporate income tax revenues are growing for a fourth straight year in spite of five rounds of Bush tax cuts totaling about $2 trillion from 2001 to 2006.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/25/business/bills.php

[Classact]

The one that puzzles me is "95% of tax payers will get a tax cut".
I've heard him say this twice now.

Now, someone splain to me, just how is it possible to cut tax on 95% of tax payers and still implement all these grand social programs?

Oh, wait! He wants to shaft the corporations! Well hell since they will just pass the cost to consumers there is no cut at all is there? It's just a shell game. A back door to YOUR tax INCREASE.

Okay, never mind.Obama's double speak is all smoke and mirrors!

I think McCain should have responded as he did about freezing federal programs and then went on to remind the American public that in 2010 the baby boomers start joining the Social Security rolls and there isn't nor will be funds for any of Obama's programs if the fraud, waste and abuse in existing programs are not first addressed!

[red states rule]

Obama's double speak is all smoke and mirrors!

I think McCain should have responded as he did about freezing federal programs and then went on to remind the American public that in 2010 the baby boomers start joining the Social Security rolls and there isn't nor will be funds for any of Obama's programs if the fraud, waste and abuse in existing programs are not first addressed!

Here is Obama's "plan"

More taxes, and double talk



Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan
Jumpstart the Economy

Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families:Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.

Provide $50 billion to Jumpstart the Economy and Prevent 1 Million Americans from Losing Their Jobs: This relief would include a $25 billion State Growth Fund to prevent state and local cuts in health, education, housing, and heating assistance or counterproductive increases in property taxes, tolls or fees. The Obama-Biden relief plan will also include $25 billion in a Jobs and Growth Fund to prevent cutbacks in road and bridge maintenance and fund school re*pair - all to save more than 1 million jobs in danger of being cut.

Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief

Obama and Biden will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay.

Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama and Biden will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama and Biden will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

Eliminate 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 proposal will eliminate income taxes for 7 million seniors and provide these seniors with an average savings of $1,400 each year. Under the Obama-Biden plan, 27 million American seniors will also not need to file an income tax return.

Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama and Biden will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama and Biden will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama-Biden proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/