Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

How would you vote in the 2008 US Presidential Election?

  • Obama-Biden (Democrat)

    Votes: 67 59.3%
  • McCain-Palin (Republican)

    Votes: 18 15.9%
  • Barr-Root (Libertarian)

    Votes: 14 12.4%
  • Nader-Gonzales (Independent-Ecology Party / Peace and Freedom Party)

    Votes: 5 4.4%
  • McKinney-Clemente (Green)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Baldwin-Castle (Constitution)

    Votes: 7 6.2%
  • Gurney-? (Car & Driver)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Other...

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    113
  • Poll closed .
Explain to me then, how George W Bush got elected twice? :lol:
I'm pretty sure we are very courageous and aggressive. That doesn't mean most of the people aren't idiots. The first time around it took more than a few years to gain the courage to fight back and gain our freedom. And when we did a bunch of rednecks defeated an entire army. Things like that happen all the time in world; who's to say another American revolution won't ever happen. I refuse to believe that the people of this country will stand for government oppression very long before they all get un-stupid and do something about it.
 
Odd indeed. I thought JFK was fighting the communists, not socialists! I will agree that there are similarities between socialism and communism, but they are not the same entity. Or are you calling us Brits communists? ;)
It was a joke, and since you are the second person to respond to it like this I have edited the post to reflect that.


That said, if I had replaced the word Socialists with Communists Obama would still be taking economic policies from their playbook, as they relied on a socialist economy.

And no I don't think Obama wants us to be like the Soviet Union. He just wants to tell me it is wrong to be rich.
 
I've been asking myself that same question for a while now... What's even worse was thinking about the years left up til now.

It's an easy question to answer.

Bush's First Term? Backlash to Clinton
Bush's Second Term? Don't abandon Iraq

That's it.
 
A lot is said of Obama's lack of experience in foreign relations and such, but that is irrelevant. When Tony Blair won election in our country, he was in the same situation. What experience had Tony Blair had before he was elected Prime Minister? What he did do though was to bring the country out of a dark period, and onward into a brighter future. I'm not saying that Blair never made any mistakes (he made a few), but our country has changed (and I believe) for the better.

Barrack Obama will do the same for America, you just need to believe. It seems to me that the only weapon that the Republicans have left is fear - its a recurring theme in their rhetoric. Fear of terrorism, fear about the economy, fear about change, even fear of fear itself! Is that how you are supposed to run a country? I don't think so. Hope is where its at!
Or he'll make it worse. Seriously, have you read Barack's plans? As I've said before, it sounds like he's never taken an economics class because even a high schooler who has completed basic economics could see the holes in his plans.

His plans to cut taxes and such are only good for short term situations. Even if you're in Europe, you should be able to see cutting the taxes for anyone under $250K means the folks who do make that much are the ones who will be carrying the economy. It simply won't work.

Obama will not be bringing us into a better & brighter future unless you believe a better brighter future consists of closed small businesses & unemployed folks because that's exactly what his tax cut plans could possibly lead to.
 
Reventón;3203080
Or he'll make it worse. Seriously, have you read Barack's plans? As I've said before, it sounds like he's never taken an economics class because even a high schooler who has completed basic economics could see the holes in his plans.

Neither has McCain, so whats the point? We've discussed this before. How about some figures just for fun?

Here is a decent analysis of the tax plans by the Urban Institute and Brookings Institute.

Here is the key:

Tax Review
Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.6 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10 and 7 percent of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law, respectively.

A Comparison from CNN Money

A Comparison from the Washington Post

Your own personal views on fiscal policy and your own personal income will likely decide your choice as the better alternative. Both are "right" and "wrong" in their own ways.
 
Neither has McCain, so whats the point? We've discussed this before. How about some figures just for fun?
McCain has admitted it, but anyone can see at least he has more experience in what he's doing. I mean, at least some of his plans actually make some sense, economic-wise unlike Obama.

As I've also said, his tax cut idea is the 2nd time he has proposed a plan that would not work in the long run. His plan to tax oil companies for lower gas would backfire, and so would this.

Your own personal views on fiscal policy and your own personal income will likely decide your choice as the better alternative. Both are "right" and "wrong" in their own ways.
I've seen that, and regardless of whether or not our debt will rise, which will you rather have? A higher debt, or a tax cut plan that will only give the middle & lower class Americans a break until the rich are out of money.

BTW, an interesting story from an East Texan.
From: Cory Miller
cory@centerlinemanufacturing.com

Send this on to others… Joe the plumber woke some people up as they putt a face on the people who are going to be taxed more. Here’s a real example…

Mr. Obama,

Given the uproar about the simple question asked you by Joe the plumber, and the persecution that has been heaped on him because he dared to question you, I find myself motivated to say a few things to you myself. While Joe aspires to start a business someday, I already have started not one, but 4 businesses. But first, let me introduce myself. You can call me “Cory the well driller”. I am a 54-year-old high school graduate. I didn’t go to college like you, I was too ready to go “conquer the world” when I finished high school. 25 years ago at age 29, I started my own water well drilling business at a time when the economy here in East Texas was in a tailspin from the crash of the early 80’s oil boom. I didn’t get any help from the government, nor did I look for any. I borrowed what I could from my sister, my uncle, and even the pawnshop and managed to scrape together a homemade drill rig and a few tools to do my first job. My businesses did not start not a result of privilege. It is the result of my personal drive, personal ambition, self-discipline, self reliance, and a determination to treat my customers fairly. From the very start my business provided one other (than myself) East Texan a full time job. I couldn’t afford a backhoe the first few years (something every well drilling business had), so I and my helper had to dig the mud pits that are necessary for each and every job with hand shovels. I had to use my 10-year-old, ½-ton pickup truck for my water tank truck (normally a job for at least a 2 ton truck).

A year and a half after I started the business, I scraped together a 20% down payment to get a modest bank loan and bought a (28 year) old, worn out, slightly bigger drilling rig to allow me to drill the deeper water wells in my area. I spent the next few years drilling wells with the rig while simultaneously rebuilding it between jobs. Through these years I never knew from one month to the next if I would have any work or be able to pay the bills. I got behind on my income taxes one year, and spent the next two years paying that back (with penalty and interest) while keeping up with ongoing taxes. I got behind on my water well supply bill 2 different years (way behind the second time… $80,000.00), and spent over a year paying it back (each time) while continuing to pay for ongoing supplies C.O.D. Of course, the personal stress endured through these experiences and years is hard to measure. I do have a stent in my heart now to memorialize it all.

I spent the next 10 years developing the reputation for being the most competent and most honest water well driller in East Texas. 2 years along the way, I hired another full time employee for the drilling business so that we could provide full time water well pump service as well as the well drilling. Also, 3 years along the path, I bought a water well screen service machine from a friend, starting business # 2. 5 years later I made a business loan for $100,000.00 to build a new, higher production, computer controlled screen service machine. I had designed the machine myself, and it didn’t work out for 3 years so I had to make the loan payments without the benefit of any added income from the new machine. No government program was there to help me with the payments, or to help me sleep at night, as I lay awake wondering how I would solve my machine problems or pay my bills. Finally, after 3 years, I got the screen machine working properly, and that provided another full time job for an East Texan in the screen service business.

2 years after that, I made another business loan, this time for $250,000.00, to buy another used drilling rig and all the support equipment needed to run another, larger, drill rig. This provided another 2 full time jobs for East Texans. Again, I spent a couple of years not knowing if I had made a smart move, or a move that would bankrupt me. For the third time in 13 years, I had placed everything I owned on the line, risking everything, in order to build a business.

A couple of years into this, I came up with a bright idea for a new kind of mud pump, a fundamentally necessary pump used on water well drill rigs. I spent my entire life savings to date (just $30,000.00), building a prototype of the pump and took it to the national water well convention to show it off. Customers immediately started coming out of the woodworks to buy the pumps, but there was a problem. I had depleted my assets making the prototype, and nobody would make me a business loan to start production of the new pumps. With several deposits for pump orders in hand, and nowhere to go, I finally started applying for as many credit card as I could find and took cash withdrawals on these cards to the tune of over $150,000.00 (including modest loans from my dear sister and brother), to get this 3rd business going.

Yes, once again, I had everything hanging over the line in an effort to start another business. I had never manufactured anything, and I had to design and bring into production a complex hydraulic machine from an untested prototype to a reliable production model (in six months). How many nights I lay awake wondering if I had just made the paramount mistake of my life I cannot tell you, but there were plenty. I managed to get the pumps into production, which immediately created another 2 full time jobs in East Texas. Some of the models in the first year suffered from quality issues due to the poor workmanship of one of my key suppliers, so an employee and I (another East Texan employed) had to drive across the country to repair customers’ pumps, practically from coast to coast. I stood behind the product, and made payments to all the credit cards that had financed me (and my brother and sister). I spent the next 5 years improving and refining the product, building a reputation for the pump and the company, working to get the pump into drill rig manufacturers’ product lines, and paying back credit cards. During all this time I continued to manage a growing water well business that was now operating 3 drill rig crews, and 2 well service crews. Also, the screen service business continued to grow. No government programs were there to help me, Mr. Obama, but that’s ok, I didn’t expect any, nor did I want any. I was too busy fighting to make success happen to sit around waiting for the government to help me.

Now, we have been manufacturing the mud pumps for 7 years, my combined businesses employ 32 full time employees, and distribute $5,000,000.00 annually through the local economy. Now, just 4 months ago I borrowed $1,254,000.00, purchasing computer controlled machining equipment to start my 4th business, a production machine shop. The machine shop will serve the mud pump company so that we can better manufacture our pumps that are being shipped worldwide. Of course, the machine shop will also do work for outside companies as well. This has already produced 2 more full time jobs, and 2 more should develop out of it in the next few months. This should work out, but if it doesn’t it will be because you, and the other professional politicians like yourself, will have destroyed our country’s’ (and the world) economy with your meddling with mortgage loan programs through your liberal manipulation and intimidation of loaning institutions to make sure that unqualified borrowers could get mortgages. You see, at the very time when I couldn’t get a business loan to get my mud pumps into production, you were working with Acorn and the Community Reinvestment Act programs to make sure that unqualified borrowers could buy homes with no down payment, and even no credit or worse yet, bad credit. Even the infamous, liberal, Ninja loans (No Income, No Job or Assets). While these unqualified borrowers were enjoying unrealistically low interest rates, I was paying 22% to 24% interest on the credit cards that I had used to provide me the funds for the mud pump business that has created jobs for more East Texans. It’s funny, because after 25 years of turning almost every dime of extra money back into my businesses to grow them, it has been only in the last two years that I have finally made enough money to be able to put a little away for retirement, and now the value of that has dropped 40% because of the policies you and your ilk have perpetrated on our country.

You see, Mr. Obama, I’m the guy you intend to raise taxes on. I’m the guy who has spent 25 years toiling and sweating, fretting and fighting, stressing and risking, to build a business and get ahead. I’m the guy who has been on the very edge of bankruptcy more than a dozen times over the last 25 years, and all the while creating more and more jobs for East Texans who didn’t want to take a risk, and wouldn’t demand from themselves what I have demanded from myself. I’m the guy you characterize as “the Americans who can afford it the most” that you believe should be taxed more to provide income redistribution “to spread the wealth” to those who have never toiled, sweated, fretted, fought, stressed, or risked anything. You want to characterize me as someone who has enjoyed a life of privilege and who needs to pay a higher percentage of my income than those who have bought into your entitlement culture. I resent you, Mr. Obama, as I resent all who want to use class warfare as a tool to advance their political career. What’s worse, each year more Americans buy into your liberal entitlement culture, and turn to the government for their hope of a better life instead of themselves. Liberals are succeeding through more than 40 years of collaborative effort between the predominant liberal media, and liberal indoctrination programs in the public school systems across our land.

What is so terribly sad about this is this. America was made great by people who embraced the one-time American culture of self-reliance, self-motivation, self-determination, self-discipline, personal betterment, and hard work, risk taking. A culture built around the concept that success was in reach on every able bodied American who would strive for it. Each year that less Americans embrace that culture, we all descend together. We descend down the socialist path that has brought country after country ultimately to bitter and unremarkable states. If you and your liberal comrades in the media and school systems would spend half as much effort cultivating a culture of can-do across America as you do cultivating your entitlement culture, we could see Americans at large embracing the conviction that they can elevate themselves through personal betterment, personal achievement, and self reliance. You see, when people embrace such ideals, they act on them. When people act on such ideals, they succeed. All of America could find herself elevating instead of deteriorating. But that would eliminate the need for liberal politicians, wouldn’t it, Mr. Obama? The country would not need you if the country was convinced that problem solving was best left with individuals instead of the government. You and all your liberal comrades have got a vested interested in creating a dependent class in our country. It is the very business of liberals to create an ever-expanding dependence on government. What’s remarkable is that you, who have never produced a job in your life, are going to tax me to take more of my money and give it to people who wouldn’t need my money if they would get off their entitlement mentality asses and apply themselves at work, demand more from themselves, and quit looking to liberal politicians to raise their station in life.

You see, I know because I’ve had them work for me before. Hundreds of them over these 25 years. People who simply will not show up to work on time. People who just will not work 5 days in a week, much less, 6 days. People always looking for a way to put less effort out. People who actually tell me that they would do more if I just would first pay them more. People who take off work to sit in government offices to apply to get free government handouts (gee, I wonder how things would have turned out for them if they had spent that time earning money and pleasing their employer?). You see, all of this comes from your entitlement mentality culture.

Oh, I know you will say I am uncompassionate. Sorry, Mr. Obama, wrong again. You see, I’ve seen what the average percentage of your income has been given to charities over the years of 2000 to 2004 (ignoring the years you started running for office - can you pronounce “politically motivated”); you averaged of less than 1% annually. And your running mate, Joe Biden, averaged less than ¼% of his annual income in charitable contributions over the last 10 years. Like so many liberals, the two of you want to give to the needy, just as long as it is someone else’s money you are giving to them. I won’t say what I have given to charities over the last 25 years, but the percentage is several times more than you or Joe Biden (don’t you just hate goggle?). Tell me again how you feel my pain.

In short, Mr. Obama, your political philosophies represent everything that is wrong with our country. You represent the culture of government dependence instead of self-reliance; Entitlement mentality instead of personal achievement; Penalization of the successful to reward the unmotivated; Political correctness instead of open mindedness and open debate. If you are successful, you may preside over the final transformation of America from being the greatest and most self-reliant culture on earth, to just another country of whiners and wimps, who sit around looking to the government to solve their problems. Like all of western Europe. All countries on the decline. All countries that, because of liberal socialistic mentalities, have a little less to offer mankind every year.

God help us…

Cory Miller

just a ordinary, extraordinary American, the way a lot of Americans used to be.

P.S. Yes, Mr. Obama, I am a real American… www.cmillerdrilling.com

It has been proven to be written by a real man, and it directly shows what Obama will do to hard working Americans like this.
http://fairlyconservative.com/obama/a-chat-with-cory-miller-aka-cory-the-well-driller/
This person as well as many others have already e-mailed Corey getting a direct response back.

Even if this letter was fake, there are plenty of Texans here who share the same thought about Obama when it comes to their business.
 
Last edited:
Odd indeed. I thought JFK was fighting the communists, not socialists! I will agree that there are similarities between socialism and communism, but they are not the same entity. Or are you calling us Brits communists? ;)

It's a moot point. You're still collectivists.
 
US election: If Iraqis could vote it would be for McCain


For five years Ali and Mohammed have lived alongside US soldiers in their Baghdad neighbourhood near Rasheed Street, a prominent commercial artery running through the heart of the Iraqi capital.

During that time American culture and politics have become familiar to them, and they say that if they could, they would vote for Republican candidate John McCain in next week's US presidential election.

"McCain would be best for Iraq because he would ensure stability," said Ali, 66, an expert on the Sumerian era.

The personal qualities and political platforms of McCain and his Democrat rival Barack Obama are of little import to Ali, however. His focus is on Iraq and its neighbours such as Iran.

"The Iranians believe that if Obama is elected he will not take action against them despite their nuclear ambitions. That worries me," said Ali, sitting on an old bench in Al-Zahawi coffee shop.

"If the Iranians get the bomb they will become the Tarzan of the region," said the former teacher and lecturer at the University of Baghdad, referring to the vine-swinging strongman of the jungle in old Hollywood movies.

Mohammed, also a professor at the university, said he too preferred McCain "because Obama supports a rapid withdrawal of US troops."

"Our army is still too weak and Turkey and Iran are threats. Iran's President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad has warned Iran would fill the void left when US troops depart," he said.


Rasheed Street with its 1920s-style buildings is still closed to vehicles, and groups of anti-Al-Qaeda fighters guard the stretch that runs north to south.

The street was the scene of major attacks by insurgents after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003 to US-led invading forces. But even before that many business establishments had begun to move away from the thoroughfare.

Today, a few hundred metres (yards) from Al-Zahawi coffee shop, is the famous Al-Mutnabi books market, the only place where Baghdadis can find English books and magazines.

Booksellers display a range of computer publications, periodicals, works of fiction and school textbooks on wooden shelves.

Barack Obama's image peers out between two editions of "Vanity Fair" magazine kept next to the memoirs of former US president Bill Clinton.

But "The Audacity of Hope," one of Obama's books, has yet to find a buyer.

"I have no customer for this book. Iraqis are interested in the campaign, but they prefer to read texts translated into Arabic," said bookseller Shallan Zaidan.

Such Arabic versions, translated and published by Lebanese companies, include "My Year in Iraq" by Paul Bremer, the former US administrator of Iraq, and "Bush at War" by renowned investigative journalist Bob Woodward.

But there are no translations of books on the two candidates bidding to enter the White House.

Iraqis prefer instead to rely on the latest issues of weekly news publications such as Time and Newsweek, said government official Whamith Shadhan, who was browsing through second-hand books and magazines.

"I trust the Republicans more. They're more capable of establishing democracy in the world, especially in Arab countries," said the 33-year-old. "Obama is far too left."

Since the invasion more than five years ago, the Mutanabi market has been twice hit by bombs. The area is predominantly Sunni, and judging by some graffiti on the walls Al-Qaeda is never far away.

"The insurgents aren't bothered by political books sold on the street. They focus on religious ones," said Yasser Ali, an Obama supporter and seller of books for 22 years.

Obama "interrupted his campaign to visit his sick grandmother. That speaks volumes about the man," he said.

Back on Rasheed Street itself, Abu Ahmed waited at a men's hairdresser as his friend got a shave.

"We accept black people more readily in the Middle East. We feel closer to them. We have common sufferings," said the long-time sports coach.

"It would be nice if the Americans elected a black person. And Obama seems less inclined to engage in another war."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081030170209.3wcxfwin&show_article=1

The Iraqis understand what is at stake more than Obama and his Legions.
 
That last guy is just one of reasons that's wrong with some of our voters. He's basically supporting Obama because he's black, and that he & Obama share common suffering. Please, I doubt Obama has shared any kind of common suffering with the people in Iraq. :rolleyes:
 
Reventón;3203080
Or he'll make it worse. Seriously, have you read Barack's plans? As I've said before, it sounds like he's never taken an economics class because even a high schooler who has completed basic economics could see the holes in his plans.

His plans to cut taxes and such are only good for short term situations. Even if you're in Europe, you should be able to see cutting the taxes for anyone under $250K means the folks who do make that much are the ones who will be carrying the economy. It simply won't work.

Obama will not be bringing us into a better & brighter future unless you believe a better brighter future consists of closed small businesses & unemployed folks because that's exactly what his tax cut plans could possibly lead to.

So you're saying cutting taxes for people under $250k is a bad idea? Do you know your 'basic economics'? Lower - middle income earners make up the majority of consumers in the economy and drive the "fundamentals" as most of their income is spent on necessities, whereas the smaller proportion of high income earners will spend a lot on luxury goods. As far as I am aware having a greater demand for goods coming from the lower/middle class will drive economic growth a lot better than a smaller demand for goods coming from the higher class.

Right, his tax cut plans will close small business and create unemployment, that makes a lot of sense. Could you please explain this one to me?
 
Thanks for posting that letter Reventon.


So you're saying cutting taxes for people under $250k is a bad idea? Do you know your 'basic economics'?
Do you know your basic human rights? Do you know that punishing success and rewarding those who don't achieve it is the way to encourage lack of production?

Lower - middle income earners make up the majority of consumers in the economy and drive the "fundamentals" as most of their income is spent on necessities, whereas the smaller proportion of high income earners will spend a lot on luxury goods. As far as I am aware having a greater demand for goods coming from the lower/middle class will drive economic growth a lot better than a smaller demand for goods coming from the higher class.
Yet, historically it has been shown that when upper class wage earners have decreased taxes they pay more because they worry less about finding tax shelters and loopholes.

From a Congressional Joint Economic Committee report. (Read: Official statistics provided by both parties, not some blog.)
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
During the summer of 1981 the central focus of policy debate was on the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, the Reagan tax cuts. The core of this proposal was a version of the Kemp-Roth bill providing a 25 percent across-the-board cut in personal marginal tax rates. By reducing marginal tax rates and improving economic incentives, ERTA would increase the flow of resources into production, boosting economic growth. Opponents used static revenue projections to argue that ERTA would be a giveaway to the rich because their tax payments would fall.

The criticism that the tax payments of the rich would fall under ERTA was based on a static conception of human behavior. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. Unfortunately, estimates of ERTA by the Democrat-controlled CBO continued to show falling tax payment by upper income taxpayers, even after actual IRS data had become available showing a surge of income tax payments by affluent taxpayers.

Given the current interest in tax reform and tax relief, a review of the effects of the Reagan tax cuts on taxpayer behavior and tax burden provides useful information. During the 1980s ERTA had reduced personal tax rates by about 25 percent, while the Tax Reform Act of 1986 chopped them yet again.


Tax Rates and Tax Revenues
High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion. A reduction in high marginal tax rates would boost long term economic growth, and reduce the attractiveness of tax shelters and other forms of tax avoidance. The economic benefits of ERTA were summarized by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth." Unfortunately, the Council could not bring itself to acknowledge the counterproductive effects high marginal tax rates can have upon taxpayer behavior and tax avoidance activities.

Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers. These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase. The graph below illustrates changes in the tax burden during this period.


Click here to see Figure 1.
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/fig-1_sm.gif

The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.

A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent.

Several conclusions follow from these data. First of all, reduction in high marginal tax rates can induce taxpayers to lessen their reliance on tax shelters and tax avoidance, and expose more of their income to taxation. The result in this case was a 51 percent increase in real tax payments by the top one percent. Meanwhile, the tax rate reduction reduced the tax payments of middle class and poor taxpayers. The net effect was a marked shift in the tax burden toward the top 1 percent amounting to about 10 percentage points. Lower top marginal tax rates had encouraged these taxpayers to generate more taxable income.

The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes (FY 1986-89). Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research,[2] the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases.

Incidentally, the claim that unrealistic supply side Reagan Administration revenue projections caused large budget deficits during the 1980s is false. Nonetheless, this false allegation is often used against current tax reform proposals. The official Reagan revenue projections immediately following enactment of ERTA did not assume huge revenue increases, and were actually quite close to the CBO revenue projections. Even the Democrat-controlled CBO projected that deficits would fall after the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts. The real problem was a recession that neither CBO nor OMB could foresee. Even so, individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989.


Conclusion
The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is disproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago.
Reading this, I have to wonder how any politician that isn't mentally challenged or morally corrupt can possibly think that any other form of tax plan would help.

Is it bad to cut the taxes on the middle class? Not if it is an across the board tax cut. Not only is it a violation of rights to create unbalanced tax programs, but there is much historical data in the US to show that decreasing taxes across the board will actually shift the tax burden on to the rich more than if you were to attempt to tax them more. From that you can draw the conclusion that if you cut taxes for the middle and lower classes but raise them for the upper class the tax burden shift would move on to the middle class and basically invalidate their cuts.

No the best way to boost the economy and reduce the tax burden on the middle and lower classes is to cut taxes across the board completely. It has been proven historically every time it has happened.


And as I am quoting specific facts and historical analysis to support what both I and Reventon are saying, I would say that we do know our basic economics.

Luxury goods which are highly likely to be imported non-American products as well.
Yeah, because all the crap that the lower and middle class buys at Wal-Mart are made in America.

If I had more free spending money that I didn't decide to just invest I would do the same thing I did with our economic stimulus check or last year's birthday money: Buy electronic gadgets. For my birthday money last year I bought a PS3. Japan thanks me, as do the countries they are manufactured in. With the stimulus check I bought a Vizio TV. Vizio only has 85 employees in the US, mostly for customer support. source And the TV stand for the Vizio, which had a big Made in China sticker on it.

You will have to excuse me if I fail to see your point.



And in Obama Nation news, the Obama camp is working to pull back expectations of change, because they have gotten too high.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5051118.ece
Barack Obama’s senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week’s election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harbouring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve.

The sudden financial crisis and the prospect of a deep and painful recession have increased the urgency inside the Obama team to bring people down to earth, after a campaign in which his soaring rhetoric and promises of “hope” and “change” are now confronted with the reality of a stricken economy.

One senior adviser told The Times that the first few weeks of the transition, immediately after the election, were critical, “so there’s not a vast mood swing from exhilaration and euphoria to despair”.

In an interview with a Colorado radio station, Mr Obama appeared to be engaged already in expectation lowering. Asked about his goals for the first hundred days, he said he would need more time to tackle such big and costly issues as health care reform, global warming and Iraq. “The first hundred days is going to be important, but it’s probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference,” he said. He has also been reminding crowds in recent days how “hard” it will be to achieve his goals, and that it will take time.

“I won’t stand here and pretend that any of this will be easy – especially now,” Mr Obama told a rally in Sarasota, Florida, yesterday, citing “the cost of this economic crisis, and the cost of the war in Iraq”. Mr Obama’s transition team is headed by John Podesta, a Washington veteran and a former chief-of-staff to Bill Clinton. He has spent months overseeing a virtual Democratic government-in-exile to plan a smooth transition should Mr Obama emerge victorious next week. The plans are so far advanced that an Obama Cabinet has been largely decided upon, with the expectation that most of his senior appointments could be announced shortly after election day.

Yet Mr Obama and his aides are under no illusions about the size of the challenges the Democrat will inherit if he enters the Oval Office. Tom Daschle, the party’s former leader in the US Senate and a strong contender for the post of White House chief-of-staff in an Obama administration, said last month that the winner next week would have only a 50 per cent chance of winning a second term in 2012.

Not only will the next president take office with the country sliding into a potentially long recession — and mired in debt — but the challenges abroad are immense. There is an unfinished war in Iraq, a worsening situation in Afghanistan and an unstable and nuclear-armed Pakistan to contend with. Iran appears intent on acquiring the bomb and there remains the ever-present threat from al-Qaeda and Islamic extremists.

If he wins, Mr Obama will inherit a Democratic-controlled Congress, and might even have the benefit of a 60-seat filibuster-proof “supermajority” in the Senate. Such a scenario would allow him to push through legislation largely unfettered by Republican opposition. Yet it also means that should the country still be mired in recession in three years’ time, voters — who have short memories — will probably blame him and the Democrats on Capitol Hill. Those stakes have led Mr Obama to conclude that while expectations need to be tempered, big things need to be achieved very early in his first term, when he will still have the political capital to achieve some of his most ambitious legislative goals.

Having promised “real” change, the pressure will be on him to deliver. In the Colorado interview, Mr Obama added: “The next president has got to come quickly out of the box.”

The early priorities being lined up if he takes power are a mixture of symbolism and substance. He plans to make a major address in a big Muslim country early in his first term. Having pledged on the campaign trail to close Guantanamo Bay, he is also determined to make early moves to rid America of the controversial prison. Yet what to do with the remaining inmates looms as an intractable problem, as many of their home governments refuse to allow them to return.

Mr Obama’s first legislative goals will be to follow through on his pledge to cut taxes for the middle class and raise them for the wealthiest Americans, and to push through a hugely expensive Bill to provide near-universal health insurance.
When reality collides with rhetoric it can get ugly.
 
Mr Obama’s first legislative goals will be to follow through on his pledge to cut taxes for the middle class and raise them for the wealthiest Americans
Mr Obama's first legistlative goal will be to follow through on his pledge to not raise taxes on the middle class and gift them free money gathered by raising taxes on everyone that's able to afford a BMW 5-Series.
 
So you're saying cutting taxes for people under $250k is a bad idea?
Did I say it's bad? The way he wants to carry it out is bad.
Right, his tax cut plans will close small business and create unemployment, that makes a lot of sense. Could you please explain this one to me?
You obviously aren't reading his policies. People making $250K or more are the ones who typically own small businesses (read the East Texan letter I posted as an example).

If you lower the taxes for people under $250K, everyone above that will get higher taxes to compensate, basically making the rich support the economy and give their money to everyone.

After a while, not every rich person will be able to sustain paying $12-$700,000+ on taxes and keep their business the way it is. Thus, you will see many let people go to lessen the amount of money being directed towards the business or the business be shut down all together because the rich can no longer support their new taxes & their business.

Obama will kill small businesses. This is a common known issue pointed out in his plans by economists.

Or do you actually believe these new tax plans would work? If so, you might as well believe Obama's plan of lowering gas by taxing oil companies would work.
 
Reventón;3203634
After a while, not every rich person will be able to sustain paying $12-$700,000+ on taxes and keep their business the way it is. Thus, you will see many let people go to lessen the amount of money being directed towards the business or the business be shut down all together because the rich can no longer support their new taxes & their business.

Thats overstating the truth a bit, because as you know, Obama plans to give every business who hires a new worker a $3000 tax cut for that year. What Obama is looking to do is enforce the tax laws that are on the books, which means that a lot of corporate tax loopholes will be closed (McCain argues a similar position), a removal of the Bush tax cuts (which reverts back to the pretty decent Clinton tax plan), and combined with that removal, a modest increase in percentages on the top (keep in mind that these increases are on top of Bush tax cut removals, I believe). The problem with the McCain point of view is that top heavy cuts really hasn't worked all that well in the past, and combined with his proposition to tax healthcare benefits is absolutely detrimental to the way in which businesses would operate.

The numbers:

GR2008061200193.gif


Our different opinions will decide what will be better for each of us. I'm not to here to tell you that you're flat out wrong, because I know too that I am as well.
 
What Obama is looking to do is enforce the tax laws that are on the books, which means that a lot of corporate tax loopholes will be closed
I'd pay to see that show, whether it was McCain or Obama that tried it. That's also ignoring that he wouldn't need to try and blow a few years rewriting tax codes if he didn't feel some compulsive need to punish rich people.

The problem with the McCain point of view is that top heavy cuts really hasn't worked all that well in the past
Ignoring, of course, the fact that it has worked every time it has been tried.
 
Thats overstating the truth a bit, because as you know, Obama plans to give every business who hires a new worker a $3000 tax cut for that year. What Obama is looking to do is enforce the tax laws that are on the books, which means that a lot of corporate tax loopholes will be closed (McCain argues a similar position), a removal of the Bush tax cuts (which reverts back to the pretty decent Clinton tax plan), and combined with that removal, a modest increase in percentages on the top (keep in mind that these increases are on top of Bush tax cut removals, I believe). The problem with the McCain point of view is that top heavy cuts really hasn't worked all that well in the past, and combined with his proposition to tax healthcare benefits is absolutely detrimental to the way in which businesses would operate.
You obviously haven't read the Congressional Joint Economic Commission's report that I posted this morning, or you wouldn't have even tried to argue this, as they say you are wrong and use data to back it up.
 
Don Rasmussen posted this on the CFL feed the other day. I thought it was funny and appropriate. From his mother ...

The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.
To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia’s mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every one applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise. She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.” She sat down. The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.”
She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn’t sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn’t know. The class really didn’t care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a land slide.
Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth he offers ice cream, and fifty percent of America reacts like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other fifty percent know they’re going to have to feed the cow.
 
Thanks for posting that letter Reventon.



Do you know your basic human rights? Do you know that punishing success and rewarding those who don't achieve it is the way to encourage lack of production?


Yet, historically it has been shown that when upper class wage earners have decreased taxes they pay more because they worry less about finding tax shelters and loopholes.

From a Congressional Joint Economic Committee report. (Read: Official statistics provided by both parties, not some blog.)
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

Reading this, I have to wonder how any politician that isn't mentally challenged or morally corrupt can possibly think that any other form of tax plan would help.

Is it bad to cut the taxes on the middle class? Not if it is an across the board tax cut. Not only is it a violation of rights to create unbalanced tax programs, but there is much historical data in the US to show that decreasing taxes across the board will actually shift the tax burden on to the rich more than if you were to attempt to tax them more. From that you can draw the conclusion that if you cut taxes for the middle and lower classes but raise them for the upper class the tax burden shift would move on to the middle class and basically invalidate their cuts.

No the best way to boost the economy and reduce the tax burden on the middle and lower classes is to cut taxes across the board completely. It has been proven historically every time it has happened.


And as I am quoting specific facts and historical analysis to support what both I and Reventon are saying, I would say that we do know our basic economics.


Yeah, because all the crap that the lower and middle class buys at Wal-Mart are made in America.

If I had more free spending money that I didn't decide to just invest I would do the same thing I did with our economic stimulus check or last year's birthday money: Buy electronic gadgets. For my birthday money last year I bought a PS3. Japan thanks me, as do the countries they are manufactured in. With the stimulus check I bought a Vizio TV. Vizio only has 85 employees in the US, mostly for customer support. source And the TV stand for the Vizio, which had a big Made in China sticker on it.

You will have to excuse me if I fail to see your point.



And in Obama Nation news, the Obama camp is working to pull back expectations of change, because they have gotten too high.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5051118.ece

When reality collides with rhetoric it can get ugly.

Human rights? Without a marginal tax system having a higher MRT for the rich I think it would be hard to maintain basic human rights (e.g. healthcare, public education) because the government would have hardly any money!

That commission was an interesting read, but it was from events that occurred over 20 years ago, right? The global and American economies have changed a lot since then, as has legislation on taxation. The Americans seemingly had quite an inefficient taxation system in the 80s (not sure if it is still like that) when you lower taxes and people pay more. Regardless, doesn't this then counteract your argument because by raising taxes on the higher class they'll be paying LESS and the government will be 'stealing' less of their money???

In an ideal world, sure cut taxes across the board, but with the situation America is in that just seems very irresponsible. The government needs its revenue to encourage economic growth to occur and (possibly) pay off some its external debt, otherwise you'll just be digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself.

After a while, not every rich person will be able to sustain paying $12-$700,000+ on taxes and keep their business the way it is. Thus, you will see many let people go to lessen the amount of money being directed towards the business or the business be shut down all together because the rich can no longer support their new taxes & their business.

Oh come on, you mean they won't be able to sustain paying tax on their net income (not revenue) so they'll have to cut jobs? Boo-hoo, they're directly injecting back into the economy so that there will be enough growth for their businesses to actually survive. They also seem to be surviving okay these days. Also if you're earning over 250k a year as a small business I'd say you're doing pretty ****ing well, most people I know who run a small business earn about half that max, probably less in the current state of the economy.
 
Human rights? Without a marginal tax system having a higher MRT for the rich I think it would be hard to maintain basic human rights (e.g. healthcare, public education) because the government would have hardly any money!
Funny, you listed two things that the government should not be responsible for, one which wasn't around until roughly the same time we had income taxes and the other which is not provided by the government now. Also, public schools are the responsibility of the states, not the federal government. Oh and those are not inalienable human rights. (waits for Danoff or Omni to repost Princess Bride clip)

The human right I am speaking of is equality. EVERYONE is treated the same. EVERYONE has the same opportunity, but from there what that person makes of that opportunity is up to them. Equality of outcome is not the same, because it takes from people to give to others.

That commission was an interesting read, but it was from events that occurred over 20 years ago, right? The global and American economies have changed a lot since then, as has legislation on taxation.
Perhaps you didn't pay attention completely because they compared it to every similar tax cut from the time we first had a federal income tax. Every time it worked out the same. It is basic fact, based on multiple instances in history, that reducing taxes evenly across the board does more for everyone than trying to redistribute wealth.

The Americans seemingly had quite an inefficient taxation system in the 80s (not sure if it is still like that) when you lower taxes and people pay more. Regardless, doesn't this then counteract your argument because by raising taxes on the higher class they'll be paying LESS and the government will be 'stealing' less of their money???
As long as there is another country for you to hide your money in there are ways to avoid paying taxes and that works for all countries.

Considering my argument is about equality (you seem to be missing that, I would refer you to our Constitution which talks about it in great length, with a specific section referring to taxes) no it doesn't contradict my argument. My argument is that everyone should be paying less taxes. EVERYONE - there's that equality thing again. Odd.

Taking from one person against their will and giving it to someone else is stealing. You can drop the quotes because if anyone else did it you would call it stealing.

In an ideal world, sure cut taxes across the board, but with the situation America is in that just seems very irresponsible. The government needs its revenue to encourage economic growth to occur
Again, something that is not the responsibility of the government.

and (possibly) pay off some its external debt, otherwise you'll just be digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself.
And that can be done by reduced spending, not increasing spending non-stop to dole out money to every little social program they can think up.


I know you are in Australia, so perhaps the US Constitution wasn't something you have read before. You at least don't appear to understand it. I suggest giving it a read because it is the founding document of our country, which lays out the principles of our country and the equal (funny that word again) rights granted to all of its citizens.

No argument anyone can make about thinking about the children or the poor people or the people who made bad investments, took out bad home loans, or anything else will matter to me if it does not follow those guidelines, that are the basis for the law in our country, and based upon the principles of inalienable human rights.

And let me define what is considered inalienable human rights by quoting the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I do this to point out something very, very important. The pursuit of happiness is the right, not happiness itself. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
 
Funny, you listed two things that the government should not be responsible for, one which wasn't around until roughly the same time we had income taxes and the other which is not provided by the government now. Also, public schools are the responsibility of the states, not the federal government. Oh and those are not inalienable human rights. (waits for Danoff or Omni to repost Princess Bride clip)

Don't states get a lot of revenue from the federal government though? Also doesn't Obama plan to have a public healthcare system - the taxes would help to fund this.

The human right I am speaking of is equality. EVERYONE is treated the same. EVERYONE has the same opportunity, but from there what that person makes of that opportunity is up to them. Equality of outcome is not the same, because it takes from people to give to others.

Right, but without staggering tax rates not everyone will have the same opportunity or be treated the same because the poor will become poorer and the rich will become richer, widening the income equality gap and creating an elite society. The government isn't taxing all your money, you're still going to be a hell of a lot better off than the person earning $30,000 getting taxed whatever percent less than you.


Perhaps you didn't pay attention completely because they compared it to every similar tax cut from the time we first had a federal income tax. Every time it worked out the same. It is basic fact, based on multiple instances in history, that reducing taxes evenly across the board does more for everyone than trying to redistribute wealth.


As long as there is another country for you to hide your money in there are ways to avoid paying taxes and that works for all countries.

Still seems like a very flawed system. :P

Considering my argument is about equality (you seem to be missing that, I would refer you to our Constitution which talks about it in great length, with a specific section referring to taxes) no it doesn't contradict my argument. My argument is that everyone should be paying less taxes. EVERYONE - there's that equality thing again. Odd.

Taking from one person against their will and giving it to someone else is stealing. You can drop the quotes because if anyone else did it you would call it stealing.

I think that's a silly argument to take. That's like saying surgery would be assault if a doctor wasn't doing it. It's not stealing, it's trying to give everyone that equal opportunity in life, regardless of where they come from or what social class they are, which your constitution argues for right?


Again, something that is not the responsibility of the government.

Government has a role to play in encouraging economic growth by injecting taxation revenues back into the economy, whether you like it or not.


And that can be done by reduced spending, not increasing spending non-stop to dole out money to every little social program they can think up.

But they'll be reducing their revenues SIGNIFICANTLY by giving tax cuts to those above $250k, more than any reductions in spending would hope to achieve.


I know you are in Australia, so perhaps the US Constitution wasn't something you have read before. You at least don't appear to understand it. I suggest giving it a read because it is the founding document of our country, which lays out the principles of our country and the equal (funny that word again) rights granted to all of its citizens.

No argument anyone can make about thinking about the children or the poor people or the people who made bad investments, took out bad home loans, or anything else will matter to me if it does not follow those guidelines, that are the basis for the law in our country, and based upon the principles of inalienable human rights.

And let me define what is considered inalienable human rights by quoting the Declaration of Independence.

I do this to point out something very, very important. The pursuit of happiness is the right, not happiness itself. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

You're right, I'm not too familiar with it. But equal rights and opportunities isn't something that is only ideal in American society. As I said before you can't have equality of opportunity with equal MRTs across the board, with your argument the only way to have a fair system would be to have EVERYONE paying the same taxation amount.
 
The following discussion is about the US constitution and US government. Not Australia (although much of it still applies)

Also doesn't Obama plan to have a public healthcare system - the taxes would help to fund this.

Healthcare is not a human right, because it requires someone else to be forced to provide it to you. Rights are things you're entitled for others to NOT do to you, not things you're able to require others to do for you.

Right, but without staggering tax rates not everyone will have the same opportunity or be treated the same because the poor will become poorer and the rich will become richer

Interesting theory. In practice it's incorrect. (there are a lot of studies on this, and many of them fail miserably at statistics)

...not to mention that the redistribution you're talking about is unconstitutional and unethical.

The government isn't taxing all your money, you're still going to be a hell of a lot better off than the person earning $30,000 getting taxed whatever percent less than you.

People earning less than about 30k are actually not paying taxes, taxes are being paid to them. The lowest income brackets in the US are negative tax rates.

Government has a role to play in encouraging economic growth by injecting taxation revenues back into the economy, whether you like it or not.

Government's charter (arguably) does not include attempting to encourage economic growth. But regardless of whether you want to argue that point, the methods of encouraging growth that you support DEFINITELY violate the constitution (ie: equal protection).


But they'll be reducing their revenues SIGNIFICANTLY by giving tax cuts to those above $250k, more than any reductions in spending would hope to achieve.

Uh... ???

Reductions in spending could be drastic and far outweigh any costs incurred by tax cuts. Not to mention that the last time we cut taxes we gained revenue. That's because taxes stifle both income generation and spending.

You're right, I'm not too familiar with it. But equal rights and opportunities isn't something that is only ideal in American society. As I said before you can't have equality of opportunity with equal MRTs across the board, with your argument the only way to have a fair system would be to have EVERYONE paying the same taxation amount.

Bingo!
 
Don't states get a lot of revenue from the federal government though?
In violation of the Constitution.

Also doesn't Obama plan to have a public healthcare system - the taxes would help to fund this.
In violation of the Constitution.

Right, but without staggering tax rates not everyone will have the same opportunity or be treated the same
When you have staggered tax rates you are already not equal. Read the Constitution, that is not allowed.

The government isn't taxing all your money, you're still going to be a hell of a lot better off than the person earning $30,000 getting taxed whatever percent less than you.
Funny, I am the guy making $30,000 ($35,00 to be technical), yet I am still arguing this point. Maybe it means something.

Still seems like a very flawed system. :P
Any system run by the government is flawed.

I think that's a silly argument to take. That's like saying surgery would be assault if a doctor wasn't doing it. It's not stealing, it's trying to give everyone that equal opportunity in life, regardless of where they come from or what social class they are, which your constitution argues for right?
It also explicitly calls for even taxes across the board which can only be used for debts and the general welfare, which means it goes to everyone, not specific groups.

Government has a role to play in encouraging economic growth by injecting taxation revenues back into the economy, whether you like it or not.
Not according to the Constitution.

But they'll be reducing their revenues SIGNIFICANTLY by giving tax cuts to those above $250k, more than any reductions in spending would hope to achieve.
If the Constitution was properly followed you almost wouldn't need an income tax.

with your argument the only way to have a fair system would be to have EVERYONE paying the same taxation amount.
As it is described in the Constitution.


I'll save myself a few more responses as I have to go:
Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution
 
Thats overstating the truth a bit, because as you know, Obama plans to give every business who hires a new worker a $3000 tax cut for that year. What Obama is looking to do is enforce the tax laws that are on the books, which means that a lot of corporate tax loopholes will be closed (McCain argues a similar position), a removal of the Bush tax cuts (which reverts back to the pretty decent Clinton tax plan), and combined with that removal, a modest increase in percentages on the top (keep in mind that these increases are on top of Bush tax cut removals, I believe). The problem with the McCain point of view is that top heavy cuts really hasn't worked all that well in the past, and combined with his proposition to tax healthcare benefits is absolutely detrimental to the way in which businesses would operate.

The numbers:

GR2008061200193.gif


Our different opinions will decide what will be better for each of us. I'm not to here to tell you that you're flat out wrong, because I know too that I am as well.
You actually see Obama's side of that graph as good!?!?!? OMG, this is one time I wish we didn't have an AUP. Oh. My. God.

Anyway, I just wanted to complain about the "$3000 cut per new worker" thing. See, it's unlikely small businesses will be able to afford to hire any new workers. And if they did, they then probably wouldn't be able to afford to give their existing workers raises. And they certainly wouldn't be able to give the new guy a raise. A $3000 tax cut just isn't enough when your workers are making $25,000 a year, ya know? It just doesn't work. Obama's math is so obviously and terribly flawed it's just appalling. It blows my mind that you--a guy getting a college education--could not see how obviously broken his system is. Those people who he's going to charge an extra $700,000 on are going to be simply devastated by this.

The lowest bracket of people he's giving a tax cut to are going to get a free "stimulus package"--a welfare check--in the mail every year. And quite a few of that lowest bracket don't even pay taxes! Those people are going to get free money! They already get free money! Some of them already get so much free money that they live off of it, never having to get a job. Now you know, people who aren't able to work need to be helped, but fully functioning people who can't work are lazy, terrible, greedy people and don't deserve any more than what they earn. Just like me. I don't deserve any more than what I earn. You don't deserve any more than what you earn. But apparently you think over 60% of Americans deserve more than what they earn.

If those rich people don't make money, they simply won't expand their businesses, they simply won't hire new people, they simply won't give employees raises, they simply won't pay as much pension money--retirees have earned the right to a retirement pension, especially because a pension is payed by the company they worked for. If your place's owner didn't make any money you wouldn't get any more raises. His plan would absolutely devastate business and the economy and we'd be in a depression in a matter of months once it went into effect.

Of course, it has to be enacted first. The bottom line is that both candidates are fools and should never even have gotten the nomination. You can thank all those poor, stupid, too-lazy-to-get-a-job Americans for that, because they voted for the guy that would pay them. Neither of these guys are any good at all, but one of them could be a catastrophe for this country, and the end of The American Way as we all know it--or at least as we remember it.
 
Back