McCain/Obama tax plans....
Well, I've got multiple sources and quotes based on published data at the top of this article.
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.
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.
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.
So, where did you take Econ classes? That wasn't in my textbook. And that statement is far from an open and shut case.
College, like everyone else.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.