Ok, so how is he raising taxes on small business?

First off, the most common argument is "Well, income is not profit. he may make 500k but only 50k is profit!" This is flat out wrong. Small business is not taxed on income. It can be if the owner takes no care into how he runs his busness though. But then again, normal people can pay more in taxes if they don't pay attention as well. Here are how small busniess is taxed.

from
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectId/FE1875A0-239D-48E5-B7D2565E0CB62159/catID/3FED35C1-7BBA-4468-901354F101CBEBE2/111/182/147/ART/

"You'll be taxed on all profits of the business -- that's total income minus expenses -- regardless of how much money you actually withdraw from the business. In other words, even if you leave money in the company's bank account at the end of the year (for instance, to cover future expenses or expand the business), you must pay taxes on that money.

You can deduct your business expenses just like any other business. You are allowed to expense (deduct) much of the money you spend in pursuit of profit, including operating expenses, product and advertising costs, travel expenses, and some of the cost of business-related meals and entertainment. You can also write off certain start-up costs and the cost of business equipment and other assets you purchase for your business."

Also, (http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/B407A867-3EE5-410F-8718C78B2EF698D6/111/277/235/ART/)

"How tax savvy a businessperson you are has a great effect on how much money is in your pocket at the end of the year. You probably know that the tax code allows you to deduct costs of doing business from your gross income. What you are left with is your net business profit. This is the amount that gets taxed."

also,

"Internal Revenue Code § 162. 'Trade or business expenses.'

"(a) In general. There shall be allowed as a deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including

"(1) a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered;

"(2) traveling expenses (including amounts expended for meals and lodging other than amounts which are lavish or extravagant under the circumstances) while away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business; and

"(3) rentals or other payments required to be made as a condition to the continued use or possession, for purposes of the trade or business, of property to which the taxpayer has not taken or is not taking title or in which he has no equity."

"
this from the tax code.

So what we learn from this is that everything that is not profit can be deducted, thus lowering the income of the individual to profit only. THIS is what he will be taxed on and THIS is the bracket he will be in (combine with any other types of income of course, such as gambling income, if he has second job, etc, but this would be the same with or without obama). Anyone counting business income as personal income is INSANE because THEY are liable in all cases. This means if they get sued they are PERSONALLY responsible. By making it an llc or sole proprietership only the business section can be liable and personal finances cannot be taken by a plantiff.

Now, what the advantages of Obama's plan? First, the making work pay break that helps mitigate the employer tax. Second, you have increased funding for incubator. Read this site to see what incubators are: http://www.smallbusinessnotes.com/starting/busincubation.html

The advantages of incubators are basically that you have help from EXPERIENCED small business investors. They are popular and have a significant effect on starup success.

This is why, imo, the small business plan of obama is superior.

"...obvious we winn not have enough money to pay for these thigns."  <---Total bullshit.

Ahh I see! Since you say he can't afford the things hes promising, your opinion is better than economist and others who have actually looked into the issue and balanced the books right?

Your opinion is based on speculation and not facts. Will he raise taxes? He might. But the same could be said about McCain. Do we have any evidence he will raise taxes? No. So why speculate on something (and only do it against Obama).

And if push comes to shove and we need to raise taxes, wouldn't you want him to make the best decision? Taxes aren't the biggest issue. Taxes are your way of investing in America, and in times of crisis, we need to bunker down.

And also, the reason we DON'T need to raise taxes for middle class is because 65% of the nations wealth already resides in the upper 10% of our wealth brackets. This is just the classic conservative bullshit. "Could Obama raise taxes?" "Could Obama be a terrorist?" "Could Obama make the wrong decisions when it comes to foreign policy?" Any candidate "could" do these things, but there are not signs that he will.

If your whole argument is based on the idea that Politicians lie, then can't I just say that McCain could increase taxes as well and then we're back where we started before we decided that all politicians lie?

And here is a link for you skeptics out there.

Barack Obama deficit increase by 2018: 3.5 trillion

John McCain deficit increase by 2018: 5 trillion

http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/2008electionfaqs/f/cutsvsdebt.htm

So who is really more likely to increase taxes with their plans? Stop speculating and research.

Whoa. I don't want to "bunker down" and give the American government more money any more than I want to dump my savings into General Motors right now.

If a system is full of shit, you don't just throw more money at it in hopes of it magically righting itself.

And if no money goes into fixing the problem the value of money drops and you lose it all anyway.

I understand peoples hesitation when it comes to government trust, but that means that we have a problem with our government and not taxes. I mean, to me the government should be on our side. Its our way to unite against those companies who can end up being too powerful.

If we have someone in office who has no person gain in mind and is really concentrated on the American people, I have no problem whatsoever giving them my money. They protect us, they provide stability, and they take our money and invest in our countries future. If we have a better organizes less corrupt government i would happily pay even more taxes.

The difference is in Ideology. For the entire time McCain has been in office, he has been for, and voted for, lowering taxes. I don't care what they say, I care what they do. Obama has not voted to lower taxes.

So, both are promising things they can't deliver, McCain to the tune of 5T, Obama to the tune of 3.5T.

When we don't have enough money, history tells us McCain will not do the programs he says he will do, and keep taxes low. History shows Obama will attempt to do more of his programs by raising taxes.

This is obvious to anyone who is not blinded by there choice in candidate. Personally, I want Ron Paul, and both of these guys can go to hell.

They both suck, but one will be a higher risk for the middle class to have there taxes raises. That's obvious.

P.S. It's funny how you contradict your own post. One says Obama's plan is balanced, and one says he will add 3.5T to the deficit. 

This is the problem. Look, the reason our forefathers put the government they did into place (a far cry from what we have today), is because people are corrupt. We need a system we can trust in, because we can never trust in people. This was the premise John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of our founders uses to form the constitution.

It was to protect the people from government, not to make a government that we look to for protection.

The more social programs we give government, the more power we give them. Power corrupts. Taxes is power.

Our forefathers would be rolling over in there grave if they knew what the country has become. Now most likely the next president will take it to an entirely new level.

We aren't dealing with a country thats like our forefathers had it. You used to be able to live on your own because you buy land, build your own house, make your own food. Now everyone is dependant on a system. Our founding fathers make this government in a very different world, and they made this country with a flexible government.

Power corrupts, but  I would rather have the power in the hands of someone I elect, rather than the richest monopoly that can control everything we need to thrive, including our foor, water, gasoline. Corporations are never supposed to become this powerful, but they are. Our facet of our lives are controlled by someone trying to reach a quota, and they usually don't care who suffers to get to that point.

I am not talking socialism, but I am talking a regulated market. Let businesses grow and prosper. Let them compete and make their own decisions. But at the same time, make sure someone is keeping a acceptable level of morality in the whole process. And this isn't a monarchy. The people working in the government are fellow citizens. It provides jobs while providing equality.