That is all part of the left's favorite tactic of pitting people against each other. Class warefare, racial tension, you name it.
McCain/Obama tax plans....
- Thread starter LXguy
- Start date
-
bobscuda67
Well-Known Member
We had 8 years of the neocon way and what has that got us? Record defict, flat wages, high inflation, a orgy of wasteful spending by a so called conservitive congress. We pay the most of any country in the world for health care but were ranked low for the quality of it. We have seen the biggest transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top in the history of the world, and do you want more of the same?
I won't even talk about the corruption that goes on in Washington that cost us all money.
The democrats are not much better but I don't think the "conservitives"are the answer either. They had there shot and our country is worse off for it
I usually vote as an independent, and I voted for Mcain in 2000 primary because I liked what he said. I would like to see no one pay any taxes,I would have some money to finish my car.
I won't even talk about the corruption that goes on in Washington that cost us all money.
The democrats are not much better but I don't think the "conservitives"are the answer either. They had there shot and our country is worse off for it
I usually vote as an independent, and I voted for Mcain in 2000 primary because I liked what he said. I would like to see no one pay any taxes,I would have some money to finish my car.
LXguy
Well-Known Member
Did you even look at the charts? The tax numbers listed above ARE decreases. His published CUTS are bigger than McCains on 99% of Americans.
As far as him changing his plans:
Sez who? Got any documentation? Quotes from Obama? Published tax plans where the rates have changed?
I know McCain says Obama says that. Color me skeptical.
You guys like to use infinitives.
Got any supporting evidence? You're pretty good at throwing around the conservative Op/Ed as if it were gospel, but you don't ever (there's my infinitive) back anything up.
Here's a Fact:
McCain says Obama is going to raise taxes on middle class Americans. There is no evidence to support McCain's statement.
Where did McCain get the idea to say that? Did he just make it up?
Here's something NOBODY has mentioned....
These aren't earthshattering changes that will cause my lifestyle to change... I'd venture to guess most every person on this board is in the under 111K bracket. 80-100/month isn't really going to change squat in your life, sorry just the way it is.
How did that stupid 600 stimulus work to re-energize the economy?
Think about the small numbers you are comparing and complaining about.
It's a red herring and something that keeps attention away from more important issues.
Just who is supposed to pay for the expensive escapades our country has partaken on foreign soil???? If you support that type of stuff, you better be willing to pay for it. Just MHO.
These aren't earthshattering changes that will cause my lifestyle to change... I'd venture to guess most every person on this board is in the under 111K bracket. 80-100/month isn't really going to change squat in your life, sorry just the way it is.
How did that stupid 600 stimulus work to re-energize the economy?
Think about the small numbers you are comparing and complaining about.
It's a red herring and something that keeps attention away from more important issues.
Just who is supposed to pay for the expensive escapades our country has partaken on foreign soil???? If you support that type of stuff, you better be willing to pay for it. Just MHO.
FISHBREATH
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2008
- Messages
- 21,384
- Reaction score
- 73
Go ahead, steal money from the pockets of people who actually invest and create things in this country. What you will end up with is less investment and less creation. This is beyond economics, this is human behavior. That is the reason communism failed and the reason Europe is stagnant and the reason we are not far behind.
Demon_Dan
Well-Known Member
McCain...Obama ...no matter what way you cut it ...two sides of the same coin if you ask me ... ..dont fool yourselves ..big business is who runs this country ...ask anybody in any industry where their jobs went. niether a republican nor a democrat will change this. Listen to old speeches from eather side going back years ...everyone calls for change ..seldom does anything change for the better for the working class.
Small Block
Well-Known Member
Hey Bobscuda67: You say there should be no taxes? In Palins state there are none so maybe she can direct us in the way we should go so as to do away with em. Someone figured that out. Oh you say the oil payed for that. Good enough. With the billions they made every quarter for the last few years let them pay the ticket. They have the money. I think i said BILLIONS. Just need someone with balls enough to tax their ***. Let me shock a lot of you. I'm satisfied with my tax structure as that is the one i created and all of us have the same oppurtunity. It's a chess game that one has to look way into the moves to figure out the right one. I've made a few good ones. Did i say i was voting for McCain/Palin?
Of course and it is all smoke and mirrors because the one sobering fact you continue to ignore is that his tax increases on business large and small will be passed right back to consumers. Your 99% of people getting tax cuts number is also ficticious.
Just look through the transcripts of his speeches over the last 18 months.
Are you kidding? Tax reductions resulting in increased revenue to the government is economics 101. You can check out the April 1996 Report "The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform" by the Joint Economic committee of Congress for starters and several studies published in the Journal of Business and Economic Statisitcs..
No, there's a spin. His tax plan will indeed make it more expensive for the middle class to live. More importantly, if you total up all the increases in government spending Obama has proposed over the last 18 months you end up with just under $1 trillion in new spending. How is he going to pay for it? The tax plan he is touting now certainly will not do it. It would be nice if the enitre media wasn't so in the tank for him that someone would ask him where all that money is going to come from, even though we all know where he will try to get it from. US.
You get your opinions from the MSM huh? First, a neocon by definition is "someone who claims to be conservative but who is actually more in line with liberal policies". Neocons are not conservatives.
Second, the economy started it's downward trend long before Clinton left office. In spite of the war, the first six years of Bush's administration saw a rebound in the economy.
Third, the deficit was far higher under Truman than it is now. It is definitely a problem but it is no record. It is also the fault of both parties, arguably more so the democrats since they are far more guilty of unecessary expenditures.
Your health care comment is pure fantasy. We probably pay less for health care than most civilized countries unless you neglect to include the horrendous tax burdon that people in countries with government-run health care pay. Liberals love to point to countries like Norway as an example of how we should live. Never mind that by the Government of Norway's own numbers, their citizens pay an overall tax rate that varies from 70% to just under 87%. NO THANK YOU. If our health care is so bad why do tens of thousands of people from Canada and the U.K. come here to pay for our health care rather than use the "free" health care at home?
As far as corruption goes, neither party has a monopoly on that.
Yes. "Change" is the biggest lie in politics.
LXguy
Well-Known Member
Well, I've got multiple sources and quotes based on published data at the top of this article.
I present the published tax plans, you make an accusation that he's changed his mind all over the place, and this is your substantiation. How about if you're going to make an accusation, you provide the evidence.
So, where did you take Econ classes? That wasn't in my textbook. And that statement is far from an open and shut case.
I've read the 1 page 3 footnote article you refer to.
The problem is that the JEC reports are written by politicians and their cronies, not economists.
Here's another, more recent article by the Joint Economic Commission that says the exact opposite.
http://jec.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fus...e-ded6-eb03-09ec1b89250a&Region_id=&Issue_id=
Got anything better?
Here's something else to chew on. Everyone knows Clinton increased taxes. However, during the Clinton administration, high taxes and all, this country saw the longest streak of sustained economic growth in its history, and he brought government revenues up by 90% at the same time. That's 50% more than Reagan at his peak.
The other thing people forget is that there were tax increases under Reagan, and that while he (Reagan) cut taxes, he also closed a number of loopholes and tax shelters in addition to massively increasing spending, so, like everything else, its more complex that it first appears. At the very least this is a cause for doubt in the constant shouting of "Reagan's tax cuts prove the Laffer Curve!!' by right-wing screeds.
That spin is entirely yours. You're saying he means something other than what he actually said.
McCain said ""Sen. Obama will raise your taxes, I won't." Town Hall Meeting, Denver CO, 08/07/08
So, basically, that's an outright lie on McCain's part. This is just one instance, I've got others, and I'm sure you've seen the campaign commercials.
bobscuda67
Well-Known Member
The right wing had their chance and screwed it up and now they need to go.
FISHBREATH
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2008
- Messages
- 21,384
- Reaction score
- 73
So, let me get this straight, you raise taxes and the economy booms? Then, why don't you advocate 75% taxation? With that tax rate, the economy should explode.
WOW! I just got it! 100% taxation will give us communism, surely there will be no better economy in the history of the world, right?
WOW! I just got it! 100% taxation will give us communism, surely there will be no better economy in the history of the world, right?
LXguy
Well-Known Member
I'm quite sure you're being facetious, but I'll respond anyway.
The point was that the economy did very well during times where taxes were supposedly "high", and that government revenues were also higher than they had been with lower taxes. Not that taxes were responsible for the economic growth. It was never stated that there was a causal relationship between high taxes and prosperity.
However, it does seem to effectively refute the idea that the higher taxes will stifle productivity or innovation.
2 Shelbys...
The Question..."If our health care is so bad why do tens of thousands of people from Canada and the U.K. come here to pay for our health care rather than use the "free" health care at home?"
The Answer....." Because by the time that they get in to see a doctor because 20 million people have clogged the emergeny rooms with their kids with the sniffles, the people that REALLY need to see a doctor would have been dead for about 6 months !!
The Question..."If our health care is so bad why do tens of thousands of people from Canada and the U.K. come here to pay for our health care rather than use the "free" health care at home?"
The Answer....." Because by the time that they get in to see a doctor because 20 million people have clogged the emergeny rooms with their kids with the sniffles, the people that REALLY need to see a doctor would have been dead for about 6 months !!
FISHBREATH
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2008
- Messages
- 21,384
- Reaction score
- 73
How can high taxes not stifle productivity or inovation? If Big Brother takes your profits, what incentive is there to be productive or innovative? I, for one, would be less inclined to work hard if the government takes the fruits of my labor.
Rob
Well-Known Member
A couple of Candaian comments :-D
Somebody said you shouldn't cut taxes during a war, the problem there is you're at war as often as not so not much wiggle room there
Your national debt is damn near $200,000 a head and climbing, hard to cut taxes with that hanging over your head
Regardless of where you live we all want tax cuts but how can you without digging an even deeper hole for our kids?
Somebody said you shouldn't cut taxes during a war, the problem there is you're at war as often as not so not much wiggle room there
Your national debt is damn near $200,000 a head and climbing, hard to cut taxes with that hanging over your head
Regardless of where you live we all want tax cuts but how can you without digging an even deeper hole for our kids?
pastortom1
Well-Known Member
Bottom line........If Barack Hussein is elected and is able to get Congress on board with his tax plan, it will be the largest tax increase across the board in the history of the USA.......there is little debate here when all the factors are viewed.
This goes far beyond payroll taxes........Far beyond..........and when he stifles the small business and corporate sectors with the massive tax burden, this nation will be launched into another depression.........only this one will be far worse than the first due to the massive numbers of the American people that rely upon various kinds of Government support to survive.
Argue all you wish...........His tax plan, according to the analysts that have track records in seeing the "handwriting on the wall", will collapse the American economy......which, by the way, is EXACTLY what Osama Bin Ladin stated their ultimate goal was for our nation.
Funny they should find such a useful idiot running for President.
This goes far beyond payroll taxes........Far beyond..........and when he stifles the small business and corporate sectors with the massive tax burden, this nation will be launched into another depression.........only this one will be far worse than the first due to the massive numbers of the American people that rely upon various kinds of Government support to survive.
Argue all you wish...........His tax plan, according to the analysts that have track records in seeing the "handwriting on the wall", will collapse the American economy......which, by the way, is EXACTLY what Osama Bin Ladin stated their ultimate goal was for our nation.
Funny they should find such a useful idiot running for President.
DustyDuster
Imfamous member
As a Yellow Dog Democrat, I have always found it a little confusing, that the supposed fiscal Conservatives (ie Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2), always run huge its, and yet Clinton had a surpluss. Now before you hard-core Reagan youths start flapping your gums, have any of your heroes lowered taxes for the average A-Body owner? No of course not, and who is going to pay for this war, probably your children, because Bush 2 doesn't have the guts to tell us what the true cost is.
FISHBREATH
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2008
- Messages
- 21,384
- Reaction score
- 73
I watched with great interest what Reagan had put forth. His agreement with Congress was to cut taxes and curtail spending, except for an increase in military spending (which eventually ran the Soviet Empire into the ground in an effort to keep up). This was done in conjunction with putting an end to government-induced inflation via action by the Federal Reserve. Speaker of the House T. O'Neill renegged on the spending cuts once the revenues began pouring into government coffers in about 1983. His big stick was to deny Reagan the military money unless he agreed to the huge social spending budgets that O'Neill put out of the House.
The big tax cuts were in personal income tax, investment taxes, and business taxes. This fueled the greatest economic expansion in world history. We are still in it. We have had one recession during that time, which was due to the First Gulf War and Bush I renegging on his "no new taxes" pledge and raising taxes. Bingo...recession, but it lasted only a few months. We are not in a recession at this time.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned "The Fair Tax". I believe this will be the true answer to most tax problems. It will force those who work for cash to pay their own way and remove the tax load from business. Worked well in New Zealand.
LXguy
Well-Known Member
Interesting theory. See previous post about the Clinton years. "High" taxes, at the same time as the longest growth period in productivity in our nation's history.
Therefore, "high" taxes do not stifle productivity. At least in the ranges Americans have ever paid them.
We kind of had a LOT of growth and productivity and innovation during the 50s also. Know what the top marginal tax rate was then?????
92%
Kennedy cut it to merely 70%.
Oh? Analysts? Really? Know any names? Have any sources for this information? Or did you hear it on talk radio and just chose to repeat it in this thread?
For the record:
I'm not in agreement with anyone getting tax cuts right now. I just saw that 51% of Americans believe that Obama's plan is to raise taxes on the middle and lower class, when in fact he's saying just the opposite.
Steve
LXguy
Well-Known Member
The "Bush 1" recession was from July of 1990 to March of 1991.
The budget that contained the tax increases was passed October of 1990, so saying that the tax increases caused the recession is not acurate, as the US had been in recession for a full three months by the time the budget was passed. The tax increases didn't go into effect until the following year.
Desert Shield started in August of 1990, and the shooting didn't commence until January of 1991. So the war was not the cause either.
Yes, that you are twisting by quoting them in terms of pure percentage, and BTW, even Obama only claims 95%. The vast majority of Obama's "cuts" are in the lowest brackets where, in terms of actual dollars, they are far to miniscule to have any effect on the economy, especially when you consider how they are overwhelmingly offset by his huge increases in the brackets where the overwhelming majority of the small and large businesses who drive the economy find themselves. It is also important to note that a substantial percentage of his "cuts" are not cuts at all, but are refundable tax credits which include the associated hugely expensive bureaucracy to manage them. His plan will kill growth and trash the economy and that is good for no one.
My comment is absed on the various claims he has made in speeches over the last 18 months, not any actual plan since he only came up with one relatively recently. I have too many things going on in life to spend looking up documentation of all of his flip-flops. Besides, that task would require a sizeable staff as there have been so many.
College, like everyone else.
Yes, what I posted was better. It dealt with the subject in terms of facts. Your post however is exactly the kind of partisan B.S. you mentioned as made obvious in it's opening sentence: "The Bush tax cuts, which disproportionately benefited the wealthiest Americans,..." Right out of the democrat playbook.
HAHAHA. You are using Bill as your source aren't you? According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the recent history of economic growth breaks down as follows:
1992-1996 average growth was 3.16%
1996-2000 average growth was 4.47%
2000-2006 average growth was 2.49%
Tha majority of the growth under Clinton did not occur until the spending cuts of the newly republican Congress took effect. Even when you consider the entire length of his two terms and give no credit to anyone but him (which is ridiculous), the claim that he increased revenues by 90% is laughable. According to the U.S. Treasury Dept. report on Structural Revenue Increases 1969 - 1995, the increase in revenue in terms of a percentage of GDP for 1992-1995 was .8%. Growth during his first term was slightly below the 1970-to-present average of 3.17%. It is also interesting to look at the breakdown of the average for 2000-2006. The average growth for 2000-2003 was only 1.63% largely because of 9/11 and the war, but the average growth for 2003 to the present, after the tax cuts and other stimulus measures took effect, is 4.62%. It is also noteworthy that 2005 saw the highest level of federal receipts in history, $2.15 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Dept.
You are correct about it being more complex than it appears. Especially when you try to blame Reagan for the huge spending increases enacted by the democrat Congress he had to deal with.
Don't worry, once Obama begins trying to explain how he will pay for his almost 1 trillion dollar increase in government spending those statements will be proven to have been prophetic.
-
