PDA

View Full Version : Elections Obama's 95% Illusion , it's a tax credit, not a cut.


ROYC75
10-13-2008, 07:42 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.


It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:


- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.

There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.


I told you clowns Obama wants to reward the deadbeat daddy's of the world and the responsible ones with an extra credit for being responsible. What about all the mothers that take care of their kids while the daddies are bastards and do nothing. Obama is good at fooling his core base of followers.

***SPRAYER
10-13-2008, 07:48 AM
It's another transfer of wealth from producers to non-producers.

TEX
10-13-2008, 08:08 AM
It's another transfer of wealth from producers to non-producers.

Exactly - to further make it so the non-producers have no incentive to produce. Just further making them more dependent on the government. Soon less than 70% will pay taxes. Maybe then Barak will promise a 100% tax cut :shake:

ROYC75
10-13-2008, 08:24 AM
Why aren't the libs here defending this plan ?

irishjayhawk
10-13-2008, 08:24 AM
Why aren't the libs here defending this plan ?

Let's hope you haven't misread a chart or god forbid the English language.

ROYC75
10-13-2008, 08:27 AM
Let's hope you haven't misread a chart or god forbid the English language.

Right on time, you wouldn't miss it for the world.

Now defend it ....

irishjayhawk
10-13-2008, 08:38 AM
Well, let's see. First, it seems the credit part is correct. Obama doesn't even hide that fact on his website.

Second, I'm not sure that the implications the article draws from that are necessarily correct, but I'm not to educated on tax codes/economics, so I'll defer to someone else.

Third, you ruin any credibility you had left with your ending editorial. It's laughable and sad that someone actually believes what he wrote.

***SPRAYER
10-13-2008, 08:39 AM
Well, let's see. First, it seems the credit part is correct. Obama doesn't even hide that fact on his website.

Second, I'm not sure that the implications the article draws from that are necessarily correct, but I'm not to educated on tax codes/economics, so I'll defer to someone else.

Third, you ruin any credibility you had left with your ending editorial. It's laughable and sad that someone actually believes what he wrote.

How is B.O. going to pay for all his new programs?

irishjayhawk
10-13-2008, 08:41 AM
How is B.O. going to pay for all his new programs?

How did Bush pay for the war with all those tax CUTS?

Spending is relative to the amount you have to spend. Bush may have cut taxes but he hardly cut spending.

That's why your question is disingenuous.

Donger
10-13-2008, 08:42 AM
Barack Hussein is either going to continue to deficit spend or raise taxes far beyond what he proposes.

"The rich" can't pay for it all.

ChiTown
10-13-2008, 08:45 AM
Barack Hussein is either going to continue to deficit spend or raise taxes far beyond what he proposes.

"The rich" can't pay for it all.

No, they can't. But they WILL pay their fair share, as well as pay for everyone else who can't afford to pay theirs..............

Chiefnj2
10-13-2008, 08:47 AM
"What about all the mothers that take care of their kids while the daddies are bastards and do nothing. "

You shouldn't be so mean to the Palin child.

triple
10-13-2008, 08:47 AM
I was wondering how you can cut taxes for 95% when only 70% pay them anyway

DeezNutz
10-13-2008, 08:47 AM
No, they can't. But they WILL pay their fair share, as well as pay for everyone else who can't afford to pay theirs..............

To clarify, you agree that the rich are going to pay for all?

Donger
10-13-2008, 08:48 AM
No, they can't. But they WILL pay their fair share, as well as pay for everyone else who can't afford to pay theirs..............

Yep. Vastly increasing taxation on the wealthy has worked out very well historically.

irishjayhawk
10-13-2008, 08:49 AM
Barack Hussein is either going to continue to deficit spend or raise taxes far beyond what he proposes.

"The rich" can't pay for it all.

No, they can't. But they WILL pay their fair share, as well as pay for everyone else who can't afford to pay theirs..............

Out of curiosity, do you guys support ANY kind of tax system?

ChiTown
10-13-2008, 08:50 AM
To clarify, you agree that the rich are going to pay for all?

Yes. Fuck the rich.

Pass me some weed...........

Donger
10-13-2008, 08:52 AM
Out of curiosity, do you guys support ANY kind of tax system?

I think it's fine the way it is. We just need to get spending under control. When we arr spending $400 billion every year just on the INTEREST on our debt, something is terribly wrong.

DeezNutz
10-13-2008, 08:52 AM
Yes. **** the rich.

Pass me some weed...........

Why did I think you were an Obama supporter? Or are you and that first statement is in earnest?

ChiTown
10-13-2008, 08:52 AM
Out of curiosity, do you guys support ANY kind of tax system?

Sure.

I own or have ownership interests in several small business'.

I pay a lot in taxes right now. I don't like it, but I certainly understand it. I just don't really feel the need to pay any more than I already pay.

ROYC75
10-13-2008, 08:53 AM
Well, let's see. First, it seems the credit part is correct. Obama doesn't even hide that fact on his website.

Second, I'm not sure that the implications the article draws from that are necessarily correct, but I'm not to educated on tax codes/economics, so I'll defer to someone else.

Third, you ruin any credibility you had left with your ending editorial. It's laughable and sad that someone actually believes what he wrote.

So you agree that daddy's should get an additional tax break for being responsible ? Why should this be ?

Interesting.

What do the mothers get on the daddy's that are not ?

ChiTown
10-13-2008, 08:53 AM
Why did I think you were an Obama supporter? Or are you and that first statement is in earnest?

Obama Supporter? :eek:

Excuse me while I go kill myself (credit to UP)

DeezNutz
10-13-2008, 08:55 AM
Obama Supporter? :eek:

Excuse me while I go kill myself (credit to UP)

My bad.

Brock
10-13-2008, 08:56 AM
I support a tax system where you mail in a check at the end of the year. The only reason there hasn't been a revolt at this point is because people don't pay attention to how much of their money is being stolen.

HonestChieffan
10-13-2008, 09:08 AM
His average supporter has squat so they all are at the trough waiting to be fed.

irishjayhawk
10-13-2008, 09:19 AM
So you agree that daddy's should get an additional tax break for being responsible ? Why should this be ?

Interesting.

What do the mothers get on the daddy's that are not ?

Hence, why you lose credibility.

ROYC75
10-13-2008, 09:24 AM
Hence, why you lose credibility.

You can't answer this one ... Can ya.

Let's reward the daddies of the world for being responsible.

Spread the wealth, keep the poor in poverty, give them more free handouts and they will continue to live this way, been proven time after time.

Wanna try again ?

Dallas Chief
10-13-2008, 10:43 AM
Well, let's see. First, it seems the credit part is correct. Obama doesn't even hide that fact on his website.

Second, I'm not sure that the implications the article draws from that are necessarily correct, but I'm not to educated on tax codes/economics, so I'll defer to someone else.

Third, you ruin any credibility you had left with your ending editorial. It's laughable and sad that someone actually believes what he wrote.

In other words- "You got nothing." Right?

Dallas Chief
10-13-2008, 10:45 AM
Out of curiosity, do you guys support ANY kind of tax system?

In other words- "You've got nothing." Right?

jidar
10-13-2008, 11:40 AM
Neither god damned one of them should reduce taxes for anyone. This country is going down the god damned toilet if it doesn't fix it's deficit spending problems, and that's a fact.

Guru
10-13-2008, 11:41 AM
Neither god damned one of them should reduce taxes for anyone. This country is going down the god damned toilet if it doesn't fix it's deficit spending problems, and that's a fact.

somebody gets it. Spending is the problem.

irishjayhawk
10-13-2008, 12:09 PM
You can't answer this one ... Can ya.

Let's reward the daddies of the world for being responsible.

Spread the wealth, keep the poor in poverty, give them more free handouts and they will continue to live this way, been proven time after time.

Wanna try again ?

I don't understand this daddies thing. You just make yourself look stupid. And if I also take this at face value, you are against helping poverty cease to exist.

Just needing to nail down the basics.

In other words- "You've got nothing." Right?

I already conceded I didn't know enough about the credit portion of Obama's tax plan. I did confirm that Obama isn't even hiding this "credit" business, which seemed to be part of the article's insinuation.

As to the other point, I'm asking them if they support any tax system because they've shot down pretty much any tax system that raises taxes. A system with all cuts has helped us get into the mess we're in now. A system with all cuts will not help us in the future. I still haven't gotten an answer.

***SPRAYER
10-13-2008, 12:14 PM
I, you are against helping poverty cease to exist.



As long as people have free will, they will continue to make poor choices. Therefore poverty cannot be completely eradicated.

irishjayhawk
10-13-2008, 12:15 PM
As long as people have free will, they will continue to make poor choices. Therefore poverty cannot be completely eradicated.

No doubt, but it seems Roy doesn't even want to help them out at any level.

***SPRAYER
10-13-2008, 12:16 PM
No doubt, but it seems Roy doesn't even want to help them out at any level.

Help is one thing. Enabling is another.

irishjayhawk
10-13-2008, 12:19 PM
Help is one thing. Enabling is another.

He specifically said "keep the poor in poverty". I mean, even in his own sentence that doesn't make sense, but I'm taking everything at face value in his post.

He wants to keep the poor in poverty.

ROYC75
10-13-2008, 12:19 PM
I don't understand this daddies thing. You just make yourself look stupid. And if I also take this at face value, you are against helping poverty cease to exist.

Just needing to nail down the basics.

It's simple, how did you miss it, we have already discussed this before on CP too.

Obama will give you an additional tax credit to pay your child support on time. He wants to reward you for being responsible. Is this right ? I don't think so , one should be responsible to start with. It's his way of getting more dead beat dads to pay up. THIS IS WRONG !!!!

How about the mothers who has kids that the dead beat dad does not be responsible for, but the mothers do ? Nothing for them ? Man there are thousands, if not millions of them.

Poverty ? Many of the poor choose to live this way because our government supplies for them. It's their way of life. Their are programs already in place for them to pick themselves up and move along to reach middle class levels or above. They should only receive as much as their efforts to get out of that poverty level.

Now there are some that are stricken with medical hardship and can not get out due to this. These are the ones we need to supply for.

irishjayhawk
10-13-2008, 12:21 PM
It's simple, how did you miss it, we have already discussed this before on CP too.

Obama will give you an additional tax credit to pay your child support on time. He wants to reward you for being responsible. Is this right ? I don't think so , one should be responsible to start with. It's his way of getting more dead beat dads to pay up. THIS IS WRONG !!!!

Oh, so all divorces where one parent is paying child support is automatically a male and automatically a deadbeat.


Got ya.

How about the mothers who has kids that the dead beat dad does not be responsible for, but the mothers do ? Nothing for them ? Man there are thousands, if not millions of them.

Where the flipping hell are you reading this in your article? I must have missed all this nonsense.

Poverty ? Many of the poor choose to live this way because our government supplies for them. It's their way of life. Their are programs already in place for them to pick themselves up and move along to reach middle class levels or above. They should only receive as much as their efforts to get out of that poverty level.

You said specifically "keep the poor in poverty". You've said that help does this. No help would also do this.


Now there are some that are stricken with medical hardship and can not get out due to this. These are the ones we need to supply for.

...

Calcountry
10-13-2008, 12:22 PM
No, they can't. But they WILL pay their fair share, as well as pay for everyone else who can't afford to pay theirs..............I propose, that the "rich" that Obama is really targeting, will have it within their power to avoid paying higher taxes rather easily.

For one thing, the amount of investment capital that they will be willing to risk will most assuredly diminish in an environment so hostile if it were to succeed and produce a profit. Gee, what are all the banks desperate for right now? Capital.

Good luck with that Barack Hussein.

triple
10-13-2008, 12:33 PM
He specifically said "keep the poor in poverty". I mean, even in his own sentence that doesn't make sense, but I'm taking everything at face value in his post.

He wants to keep the poor in poverty.

Someone is always going to be in the lower 10% of earnings in any place.

triple
10-13-2008, 12:34 PM
I propose, that the "rich" that Obama is really targeting, will have it within their power to avoid paying higher taxes rather easily.

For one thing, the amount of investment capital that they will be willing to risk will most assuredly diminish in an environment so hostile if it were to succeed and produce a profit. Gee, what are all the banks desperate for right now? Capital.

Good luck with that Barack Hussein.

The rich didn't get rich by paying 50% or more of their income in taxes like Obama wants them to. They'll just take it out of the country.

ChiTown
10-13-2008, 12:36 PM
The rich didn't get rich by paying 50% or more of their income in taxes like Obama wants them to. They'll just take it out of the country.

qft

ROYC75
10-13-2008, 12:42 PM
Oh, so all divorces where one parent is paying child support is automatically a male and automatically a deadbeat.
Got ya.
Where the flipping hell are you reading this in your article? I must have missed all this nonsense.
You said specifically "keep the poor in poverty". You've said that help does this. No help would also do this.
...


Look dingbat, Not all dads are deadbeats, :rolleyes:

Obama wants to reward you to be responsible, he is encouraging more dads who are dead beat to becoming responsible. This is wrong.

The plan doesn't mention mothers ,other than single parents. Maybe Obama want the mothers to have that $ 1110.00 instead of the deadbeat dad that is lazy or locked up ? It doesn't say, so this is not clear. I question this part of of it.

"keep the poor in poverty " ...... You dot , what can I can. My quote wasn't clear enough, sorry. Ref: Let the lazy continue to live off the system and give them more is wrong. Give them a way and a time limit to help themselves. Now, the medically hardship cases are exempt from this.

Does any of this help you to understand anything ?

alanm
10-13-2008, 12:43 PM
Sure.

I own or have ownership interests in several small business'.

I pay a lot in taxes right now. I don't like it, but I certainly understand it. I just don't really feel the need to pay any more than I already pay.
You better bend over and grease up because you're royally f*cked when Obama gets in.
You best start planning an exit strategy now.

triple
10-13-2008, 12:47 PM
Large enterprises, especially low margin ones, conduct business based on these factors. Tax savings is a major concern in any kind of accounting or strategic planning decision process. Poor tax planning can be the difference between profit and loss - easily.

Think about it, what if you own a suburban town McDonalds franchise that profits a million a year. If the taxes in your city were 10% but were going up to 20% next year, that's a hundred thousand dollars out of your pocket - every year. If you can move down the street and get a 10% cut, that's a $200,000 swing. you'll be doing it yesterday.

Particularly if you are a corporate CEO who gets to use that 10% tax savings to improve earnings and make his bonus targets.

irishjayhawk
10-13-2008, 12:51 PM
Look dingbat, Not all dads are deadbeats, :rolleyes:

Obama wants to reward you to be responsible, he is encouraging more dads who are dead beat to becoming responsible. This is wrong.

The plan doesn't mention mothers ,other than single parents. Maybe Obama want the mothers to have that $ 1110.00 instead of the deadbeat dad that is lazy or locked up ? It doesn't say, so this is not clear. I question this part of of it.

That's not what you said nor is that what the article says. Please quote me the part of the article that says dads.


"keep the poor in poverty " ...... You dot , what can I can. My quote wasn't clear enough, sorry. Ref: Let the lazy continue to live off the system and give them more is wrong. Give them a way and a time limit to help themselves. Now, the medically hardship cases are exempt from this.

Does any of this help you to understand anything ?

How would you go about solving the poverty issue?

ROYC75
10-13-2008, 01:06 PM
That's not what you said nor is that what the article says. Please quote me the part of the article that says dads.
How would you go about solving the poverty issue?

Dads ? The article doesn't say this, so I reference it to the deadbeat dad's comments and speech he gave about 2 months ago.

The poverty crisis ? I'm no expert on this, but one way is similar to the unemployment program and supply a few current principals.Give a person who is capable of working a time frame to find employment thru the local offices or on their own. ( many people want that perfect job and turn jobs down.) Make required to work at least 8 months before going back on to the program ( unless laid off or medical reasons ) Give them a voucher ( government funded ) for a vocational career jobs or to be used for college, with a max limit.


Again, I am no expert, this is just a way that is better than letting them live off the government free and be lazy, do nothing.

Do you have a better way ?

triple
10-13-2008, 01:12 PM
How would you go about solving the poverty issue?

what PRECISELY is "the poverty issue"

Logical
10-13-2008, 01:16 PM
Right on time, you wouldn't miss it for the world.

Now defend it ....Looks pretty good to me, I guess if you are not going to get any credits Roy, you might fear it. If so tough luck.

irishjayhawk
10-13-2008, 05:56 PM
Dads ? The article doesn't say this, so I reference it to the deadbeat dad's comments and speech he gave about 2 months ago.

So you're talking out of your ass?


The poverty crisis ? I'm no expert on this, but one way is similar to the unemployment program and supply a few current principals.Give a person who is capable of working a time frame to find employment thru the local offices or on their own. ( many people want that perfect job and turn jobs down.) Make required to work at least 8 months before going back on to the program ( unless laid off or medical reasons ) Give them a voucher ( government funded ) for a vocational career jobs or to be used for college, with a max limit.


Again, I am no expert, this is just a way that is better than letting them live off the government free and be lazy, do nothing.

Do you have a better way ?

Oh, so the government can help. I thought that was socialist.

ClevelandBronco
10-13-2008, 06:12 PM
...I already conceded I didn't know enough about the credit portion of Obama's tax plan. I did confirm that Obama isn't even hiding this "credit" business, which seemed to be part of the article's insinuation.

I see no honor in a thief admitting that he's holding a gun.

ClevelandBronco
10-13-2008, 06:22 PM
So you're talking out of your ass?

I know this guy is:

...but I'm not to educated on tax codes/economics, so I'll defer to someone else...

ClevelandBronco
10-13-2008, 06:23 PM
Neither god damned one of them should reduce taxes for anyone. This country is going down the god damned toilet if it doesn't fix it's deficit spending problems, and that's a fact.

Did you just say that it's a spending problem?

There's hope for you.

patteeu
10-13-2008, 06:24 PM
somebody gets it. Spending is the problem.

I'm not really sure jidar gets that spending is the problem. It sounds more like he just thinks taxes have been too low. I could be wrong, but that's what it sounded like to me.

MahiMike
10-13-2008, 06:36 PM
I can think of 10 Trillion reasons both candidates should be claiming we NEED to raise taxes.

MahiMike
10-13-2008, 06:39 PM
Did you just say that it's a spending problem?

There's hope for you.

That's pretty simplistic. Basically, we have a Plutonium credit card that we've charged up to $10 TRILLION. And you think we can just cut back on spending? Our fucking grandkids will be paying for the ineptitude of the Republican fiscal plan. :cuss:

ClevelandBronco
10-13-2008, 06:41 PM
That's pretty simplistic. Basically, we have a Plutonium credit card that we've charged up to $10 TRILLION. And you think we can just cut back on spending? Our ****ing grandkids will be paying for the ineptitude of the Republican fiscal plan. :cuss:

STOP SPENDING AND CUT UP THE CREDIT CARD.

And keep your damn hand out of my pocket, deadbeat.

MahiMike
10-13-2008, 06:49 PM
STOP SPENDING AND CUT UP THE CREDIT CARD.

And keep your damn hand out of my pocket, deadbeat.

Dude, not only am I all up in yo wallet, I'm coming to Cleveland to take your shit while you're at work!ROFL

***SPRAYER
10-13-2008, 07:02 PM
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121406/home.parcol11.0018.ImageFile.jpg

ClevelandBronco
10-13-2008, 07:05 PM
Dude, not only am I all up in yo wallet, I'm coming to Cleveland to take your shit while you're at work!ROFL

Flawed plan. I live in the south suburbs of Denver.

Guru
10-13-2008, 07:22 PM
That's pretty simplistic. Basically, we have a Plutonium credit card that we've charged up to $10 TRILLION. And you think we can just cut back on spending? Our ****ing grandkids will be paying for the ineptitude of the Republican fiscal plan. :cuss: You think the republicans are the only ones behind this?

ROYC75
10-13-2008, 08:38 PM
So you're talking out of your ass?

Oh, so the government can help. I thought that was socialist.

Dumbass, sometime I wonder why I try with you. BTW,government has had a hand in welfare and will always have a hand in it. What did you expect, some friggin miracle . Notice you didn't answer the question..... wait, never mind, it's better if you don't comment.

Get over it, f**king grow up, would ya ?

MahiMike
10-13-2008, 08:42 PM
You think the republicans are the only ones behind this?


Of course not. I'm big enough to admit where we're at as a country. It's crazy to think anybody could even consider cutting taxes given the credit card bill we have right now. We owe it to the next generation to make it right.

2bikemike
10-13-2008, 09:12 PM
It makes me sick that people are stupid enough to think we can tax our way out of our budget problems.

Doesn't anybody use a personal budget for their own finances? What do you do when your spending more than you make? Do you continually go to your employer for a pay raise? Do you take side jobs that you can't quit doing so you can spend more money?

The more you make the more you spend and the Gov. is the master at that. They take money from you in so many fugging ways that the majority of people don't realize what they actually pay in taxes.

Like someone mentioned earlier the Govt. has the Plutonium Mastercard that they just keep charging up. Well sooner or later you get to a point where the whole thing comes crashing down on you.

irishjayhawk
10-13-2008, 10:10 PM
I know this guy is:

Funny, neither of my comments had to do with that.

Dumbass, sometime I wonder why I try with you. BTW,government has had a hand in welfare and will always have a hand in it. What did you expect, some friggin miracle . Notice you didn't answer the question..... wait, never mind, it's better if you don't comment.

Get over it, f**king grow up, would ya ?

So you are a hypocrite? That's all I wanted you to admit. You don't like socialism but yet you do in some aspects.

As to your question, I'm not sure you what part I'm supposed to have a better solution to: the tax plans or the poverty problem.

I notice you didn't go back to the retarded "deadbeat daddy" point.

irishjayhawk
10-13-2008, 10:13 PM
It makes me sick that people are stupid enough to think we can tax our way out of our budget problems.

Doesn't anybody use a personal budget for their own finances? What do you do when your spending more than you make? Do you continually go to your employer for a pay raise? Do you take side jobs that you can't quit doing so you can spend more money?

The more you make the more you spend and the Gov. is the master at that. They take money from you in so many fugging ways that the majority of people don't realize what they actually pay in taxes.

Like someone mentioned earlier the Govt. has the Plutonium Mastercard that they just keep charging up. Well sooner or later you get to a point where the whole thing comes crashing down on you.

No doubt. However, to correct the problem that this President has got us into require us to bring in some money. To do that, we must raise taxes a bit. Additionally, we need to horde that money so we need to cut spending.

Both need to happen.

ClevelandBronco
10-13-2008, 10:22 PM
...

So far, your comments haven't dealt with anything except your own admitted inability to discuss the matter at hand..

It's probably not a good idea to admit absolute ignorance near the beginning of the discussion.

ClevelandBronco
10-13-2008, 10:25 PM
On the other hand, it kept you from looking like an idiot.

irishjayhawk
10-13-2008, 10:28 PM
So far, your comments haven't dealt with anything except your own admitted inability to discuss the matter at hand..

It's probably not a good idea to admit absolute ignorance near the beginning of the discussion.

I wouldn't say absolute, just not comprehensive. Hell, probably not even adequate. I'd say, as is, I'm in line with average joe in terms of economics.

That said, I understand basic concepts like the reason why cutting taxes and spending heavily is the worst possible combination you can have.

Like I said, though, my comments to Roy had to do with his retardedness in arguing that Obama was favoring "deadbeat daddies" - something the article never said. And how he doesn't want to help the poor, which then he clarified that he does, but his method of doing so is socialist in nature and therefore contradictory to all of his retarded USSA!!!! chants.

ClevelandBronco
10-13-2008, 10:37 PM
...I'm not to educated on tax codes/economics...

No kidding.

ClevelandBronco
10-13-2008, 10:40 PM
I'm in line with average joe in terms of economics...

Imagine my shock, kid.

ClevelandBronco
10-13-2008, 10:44 PM
Frankly, I'd be surprised if you knew anything at all about money at your age.

Freaking college-aged kid.

Please.

2bikemike
10-13-2008, 11:38 PM
No doubt. However, to correct the problem that this President has got us into require us to bring in some money. To do that, we must raise taxes a bit. Additionally, we need to horde that money so we need to cut spending.

Both need to happen.

Our spending is not all the fault of the POTUS. Its been going on a long damn time. Congress has just as much fault as anyone in all this Bullshit. If you don't believe that just look how they got the $700 Billion passed. They added another $100 Billion in pork.

Folks always blaming the POTUS for the trouble is assinine.

Mecca
10-14-2008, 12:43 AM
Ok from this article...

In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability.

First of all, whoever wrote the article ignores that payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare are income taxes when talking about how so many people pay no taxes. It looks at marginal income tax rates instead of total taxes paid to determine its figures.

Second, the article assumes that shifting the tax burden away from the working poor is "welfare" and thus a negative.

Third, the WSJ isn't doing anything in this article but repeating numbers supplied by the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

patteeu
10-14-2008, 05:46 AM
So you are a hypocrite? That's all I wanted you to admit. You don't like socialism but yet you do in some aspects.

In the same way that you're a hypocrite because you don't like religion but you're willing to support a self-described Christian for the Presidency (even if your support is less intense than some of his supporters).

IOW, it's not really hypocritical at all because, afaik, you've never taken the position that even the slightest hint of religion makes something bad (although you've come closer than most to doing so). Similarly, those of us who don't want the country to move further down the socialist path aren't necessarily opposed to limited socialism in our predominantly capitalist system. Everyone's comfort level is different, but very few of us argue that we need to eliminate every hint of socialism from our system. We can still oppose a hard left turn though.

patteeu
10-14-2008, 05:52 AM
Ok from this article...



First of all, whoever wrote the article ignores that payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare are income taxes when talking about how so many people pay no taxes. It looks at marginal income tax rates instead of total taxes paid to determine its figures.

The author seems to be taking his cue from Obama. If we include payroll taxes in the equation, Obama's pledge to not raise taxes on anyone with an income of $250k or less goes out the window. You can't have it both ways.


Second, the article assumes that shifting the tax burden away from the working poor is "welfare" and thus a negative.

No, the author correctly notes that giving people money without regard to whether or not they paid that much money in taxes (including payroll taxes) is more accurately described as welfare than a tax cut.

Third, the WSJ isn't doing anything in this article but repeating numbers supplied by the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

Which numbers are wrong?

Bootlegged
10-14-2008, 05:55 AM
Ok from this article...



First of all, whoever wrote the article ignores that payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare are income taxes when talking about how so many people pay no taxes. It looks at marginal income tax rates instead of total taxes paid to determine its figures.

Second, the article assumes that shifting the tax burden away from the working poor is "welfare" and thus a negative.

Third, the WSJ isn't doing anything in this article but repeating numbers supplied by the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.


So Mecca now has the ability to edit the WSJ. Got it.

Mecca
10-14-2008, 05:59 AM
I disagree with that Welfare take I'll put it this way...

1. They DO pay taxes.

2. Providing more money to the working poor is a good thing for stimulating the economy because they're more likely to spend all of it than the rich people you give a tax cut to will. Also, it evens out the distribution of wealth...too much money in fewer hands (the trend for the last 7 years) leads to a bad economic result.

Not to mention this article doesn't even get McCain's health credit right; it's $2,500 for individuals, not $5,000, and I already pointed out the issue of "Marginal Taxes suddenly turn into Total Taxes" problem with the deal.

bkkcoh
10-14-2008, 06:26 AM
What is the percentage of the people that aren't paying any taxes at all? If you give them more money back, isn't that another form of welfare?

patteeu
10-14-2008, 07:13 AM
I disagree with that Welfare take I'll put it this way...

1. They DO pay taxes.

The tax credit can be greater than the income taxes owed. That's a handout, not a refund. Again, you can't have it both ways on including payroll taxes in your analysis. Either you count them and Obama's no tax increase pledges crumble (as if they won't anyway) or you don't.

2. Providing more money to the working poor is a good thing for stimulating the economy because they're more likely to spend all of it than the rich people you give a tax cut to will. Also, it evens out the distribution of wealth...too much money in fewer hands (the trend for the last 7 years) leads to a bad economic result.

With each passing year, this strategy becomes more and more obsolete. As the US imports more and more from overseas, demand-side stimulation of the American economy becomes less efficient (because many of those dollars will be spent on imports).

As the US market becomes a smaller share of the global market and as we increasingly need to produce for that market to maintain strong jobs here at home, stimulation should come in the form of reducing barriers to production (e.g. cutting corporate taxes, separating health care insurance from employment, minimizing unnecessary regulation etc.).

ROYC75
10-14-2008, 08:25 AM
Like I said, though, my comments to Roy had to do with his retardedness in arguing that Obama was favoring "deadbeat daddies" - something the article never said. And how he doesn't want to help the poor, which then he clarified that he does, but his method of doing so is socialist in nature and therefore contradictory to all of his retarded USSA!!!! chants.


You are f**king stupid.Period. Obama, himself was on TV harping about the dead beat dads 2 months ago and his proposal was the same damn thing in the article.

Go to class and learn something .

Mecca
10-14-2008, 08:26 AM
Roy calling someone stupid, dude people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

ROYC75
10-14-2008, 08:33 AM
No doubt. However, to correct the problem that this President has got us into require us to bring in some money. To do that, we must raise taxes a bit. Additionally, we need to horde that money so we need to cut spending.

Both need to happen.


You really don't know much, do you. This president isn't the cause of all of our problems. Raising taxes in a recession is stupid, ref: Hoover .

I will give you credit , you must increase income and cut spending . This is the smartest thing you have ever said on the BB. But you don't raise taxes to get there in a recession. Now if the economy was strong or stable, I could see this, but it is not. The American economy needs stability first before taxing the people.

Get to class and leave us alone today .

ROYC75
10-14-2008, 08:34 AM
Roy calling someone stupid, dude people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.


So why did you open your mouth ?

Pot meet kettle .....

Mecca
10-14-2008, 08:35 AM
So why did you open your mouth ?

Pot meet kettle .....

I'm not the one who can't properly read a graph...

ROYC75
10-14-2008, 08:41 AM
I'm not the one who can't properly read a graph...

Whatever, I didn't have my glasses on that day...... just one of those days.

BTA, I covered that , already. In the same thread. I still don't trust his liberal tax and spend methods, bad for economy.

Mecca
10-14-2008, 08:42 AM
1 more time just for feeling you ready....tax and spend liberal...fiscal conservative...

http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg37/calimom123/Unknown-1.jpg

ROYC75
10-14-2008, 09:28 AM
1 more time just for feeling you ready....tax and spend liberal...fiscal conservative...

http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg37/calimom123/Unknown-1.jpg

The economy wasn't in a recession when Bush # 1 left office and Clinton took over, reason he raised taxes when he got in to office. Bush # 1 didn't want to raise taxes a the time coming off the Gulf War.

irishjayhawk
10-14-2008, 12:31 PM
Our spending is not all the fault of the POTUS. Its been going on a long damn time. Congress has just as much fault as anyone in all this Bullshit. If you don't believe that just look how they got the $700 Billion passed. They added another $100 Billion in pork.

Folks always blaming the POTUS for the trouble is assinine.

No doubt. The reason this can be blamed predominately on Bush is because it was his war. He took a united nation and went to war with it. The war drain is one of the reasons why our economy is the way it is at the moment. It's just drained us.

Sure, Congress gave him the check and authority, but let's not pretend that congress wanted to go to war. That was Bush's sell job and he sold it.

You are f**king stupid.Period. Obama, himself was on TV harping about the dead beat dads 2 months ago and his proposal was the same damn thing in the article.

Go to class and learn something .

No. It doesn't. His plan says nothing about deadbeat daddies. Period. End of story.

You really don't know much, do you. This president isn't the cause of all of our problems. Raising taxes in a recession is stupid, ref: Hoover .

Sometimes, however, it is the only thing we can do. We need money flowing in just as bad as we need money to stop flowing out. Cutting your spending on your credit card bill does not pay your bill as well - no matter what type of crunch you're in.


I will give you credit , you must increase income and cut spending . This is the smartest thing you have ever said on the BB. But you don't raise taxes to get there in a recession. Now if the economy was strong or stable, I could see this, but it is not. The American economy needs stability first before taxing the people.

Get to class and leave us alone today .

Hmm, I still remember you saying it would be necessary to tax even in a recession because our predicament was that bad. Am I misremembering?

irishjayhawk
10-14-2008, 12:41 PM
Frankly, I'd be surprised if you knew anything at all about money at your age.

Freaking college-aged kid.

Please.

Do you have anything constructive to add? Obviously, not.

Apparently, stating your weakness is a bad thing.

In the same way that you're a hypocrite because you don't like religion but you're willing to support a self-described Christian for the Presidency (even if your support is less intense than some of his supporters).

IOW, it's not really hypocritical at all because, afaik, you've never taken the position that even the slightest hint of religion makes something bad (although you've come closer than most to doing so). Similarly, those of us who don't want the country to move further down the socialist path aren't necessarily opposed to limited socialism in our predominantly capitalist system. Everyone's comfort level is different, but very few of us argue that we need to eliminate every hint of socialism from our system. We can still oppose a hard left turn though.

I quite understand the difference between some socialism and full blown socialism. However, people like Roy are harping on and on about a fictitious USSA.

First of all, nothing has even happened yet. It's fearmongering, plain and simple. It is, of course, Republican play #1.

Secondly, Roy has been adamant about socialism being inherently bad. Hence, the USSA claim. The problem I have here is twofold. First, socialism isn't inherently bad. That's why he doesn't have a problem with welfare (with boundaries). Second, Roy has been extremely partisan with the claim that more socialism is only evident with Obama. The fact is this scary "socialism" that he trumpets is also marching with the Republican party as well. McCain's housing buyup is exhibit A.

Finally, the reason I disagree (very lightly, I might add, as it was a good analogy) is that Roy has made the claim several times and through implication that these socialist tendencies are inherently bad and that any system that adopts them is bad. Again, we come to his USSA chants. He wouldn't be using USSA if the USSR hadn't been percieved as a cataclysmic failure. So, while I have maintained that some religion isn't necessarily bad, Roy has maintained that any socialism is bad. That's why I call him a hypocrite when he talks about welfare and supporting it.

Calcountry
10-14-2008, 12:44 PM
It's another transfer of wealth from producers to non-producers.That is what he meant when he said, "spread the wealth around".

He doesn't care who earned the wealth. It's his to dole out as he sees fit to do.

Max pay for CEO's, and minimum pay for fry cooks.

From each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs.(Karl Marx). So calling him a Marxist is NOT racist, it is a fact.

The ends justify the means, so lie to obtain power, because the implementation of "change" justifies any and all activities needed to get there. This includes, but is not limited to cracking a few acorns.

ROYC75
10-14-2008, 12:59 PM
Hmm, I still remember you saying it would be necessary to tax even in a recession because our predicament was that bad. Am I misremembering?

Again, I addressed that the other night in our conversation, it was a comment to Jim's post.I agreed,then later retracted after remembering what happened to America in the Hoover years. Recalling that the economy was bad, but yet in the Clinton years the economy was good and the reason Clinton raised taxes in office where as he campaigned against them. Clinton got credit for bringing us out of the deficit when the economy was good and raised taxes to help it.

These are different times than back in the Clinton years.

|Zach|
10-14-2008, 12:59 PM
Look people, quit asking him questions. He doesn't have time for this today.

Obviously.

Amnorix
10-14-2008, 01:00 PM
I think it's fine the way it is. We just need to get spending under control. When we arr spending $400 billion every year just on the INTEREST on our debt, something is terribly wrong.

Yes. Republican Presidnets keep cutting taxes and don't even try to curtail spending, thereby driving up our national debt to insane levels.

:p

Amnorix
10-14-2008, 01:03 PM
You really don't know much, do you. This president isn't the cause of all of our problems. Raising taxes in a recession is stupid, ref: Hoover .

Yet the Republicans want to cut taxes in all economic environments, leading to massive deficits. That ain't so freaking brilliant either.

Amnorix
10-14-2008, 01:04 PM
The economy wasn't in a recession when Bush # 1 left office and Clinton took over, reason he raised taxes when he got in to office. Bush # 1 didn't want to raise taxes a the time coming off the Gulf War.

Yet Clinton and the Democrats got crucified by freaking Republicans for putting hte nation's economic house back into order. See 1994, Mid-Term Elections of.

ROYC75
10-14-2008, 01:04 PM
Do you have anything constructive to add? Obviously, not.

Apparently, stating your weakness is a bad thing.



I quite understand the difference between some socialism and full blown socialism. However, people like Roy are harping on and on about a fictitious USSA.

First of all, nothing has even happened yet. It's fearmongering, plain and simple. It is, of course, Republican play #1.

Secondly, Roy has been adamant about socialism being inherently bad. Hence, the USSA claim. The problem I have here is twofold. First, socialism isn't inherently bad. That's why he doesn't have a problem with welfare (with boundaries). Second, Roy has been extremely partisan with the claim that more socialism is only evident with Obama. The fact is this scary "socialism" that he trumpets is also marching with the Republican party as well. McCain's housing buyup is exhibit A.

Finally, the reason I disagree (very lightly, I might add, as it was a good analogy) is that Roy has made the claim several times and through implication that these socialist tendencies are inherently bad and that any system that adopts them is bad. Again, we come to his USSA chants. He wouldn't be using USSA if the USSR hadn't been percieved as a cataclysmic failure. So, while I have maintained that some religion isn't necessarily bad, Roy has maintained that any socialism is bad. That's why I call him a hypocrite when he talks about welfare and supporting it.

Idiot ....... I said we are heading to a form of USSA if Obama is elected and the democratic house and senate allow him to have his way .

That's what I fear...... it depends on the house and senate, if Obama is elected, which in appears to be the case at this time.

Get off your socialist kicks about welfare, it's been around and will always be around. We will always have some form of it,I just don't want to see a full blown scale of it. The current bailouts are socialism, when we should be practicing capitalism. I opposed the bailouts.......Even the McCain bailouts.

As for Obama, he scare me in many ways, not just this.

Amnorix
10-14-2008, 01:06 PM
It makes me sick that people are stupid enough to think we can tax our way out of our budget problems.

Doesn't anybody use a personal budget for their own finances? What do you do when your spending more than you make? Do you continually go to your employer for a pay raise? Do you take side jobs that you can't quit doing so you can spend more money?

The more you make the more you spend and the Gov. is the master at that. They take money from you in so many fugging ways that the majority of people don't realize what they actually pay in taxes.

Like someone mentioned earlier the Govt. has the Plutonium Mastercard that they just keep charging up. Well sooner or later you get to a point where the whole thing comes crashing down on you.

But....but.....but Republicans have been telling us for years that deficits don't matter.

ROYC75
10-14-2008, 01:06 PM
Look people, quit asking him questions. He doesn't have time for this today.

Obviously.

Cat > Catnip ?

ROYC75
10-14-2008, 01:09 PM
Yet the Republicans want to cut taxes in all economic environments, leading to massive deficits. That ain't so freaking brilliant either.

The spending is the culprit . It always has, raising taxes to offset is OK when the economy is good and stable, now is not the time. Cutting will allow more money to be used to stable the economy.Taxing business and corporates is like cutting your throat in these times,it will diminish jobs .

irishjayhawk
10-14-2008, 01:10 PM
Idiot ....... I said we are heading to a form of USSA if Obama is elected and the democratic house and senate allow him to have his way .

You have never, before now, said we are heading to a "form" of USSA. You've always just changed USSA!!!!!

That's what I fear...... it depends on the house and senate, if Obama is elected, which in appears to be the case at this time.

At least we've narrowed it down to something that hasn't materialized and hasn't materialized. So it is, simply, fear mongering.

Red Scare. McCarthyism. Alive and well.


Get off your socialist kicks about welfare, it's been around and will always be around. We will always have some form of it,I just don't want to see a full blown scale of it. The current bailouts are socialism, when we should be practicing capitalism. I opposed the bailouts.......Even the McCain bailouts.

As for Obama, he scare me in many ways, not just this.

So you're against socialism but you're also apathetic towards certain implementations of it? Like you favor socialism with rules. (Welfare with mandates, rules, etc)

I really would like it if you could make it through one post without looking like an idiot. "he scare me in many ways" :shake:

irishjayhawk
10-14-2008, 01:12 PM
The spending is the culprit . It always has, raising taxes to offset is OK when the economy is good and stable, now is not the time. Cutting will allow more money to be used to stable the economy.Taxing business and corporates is like cutting your throat in these times,it will diminish jobs .

Do you have a credit card?

If so, if you stop spending with it, do you still have to pay the bill you've already accumulated?

ROYC75
10-14-2008, 01:12 PM
Yet Clinton and the Democrats got crucified by freaking Republicans for putting hte nation's economic house back into order. See 1994, Mid-Term Elections of.

The economy was stable, just coming off the gulf war then, many thought it was a gamble that it would stall the minimal growth from the previous year.

Clinton was lucky,it paid off ........the rest is history.

ROYC75
10-14-2008, 01:14 PM
Do you have a credit card?

If so, if you stop spending with it, do you still have to pay the bill you've already accumulated?

Not anymore ......

Yes ?

ROYC75
10-14-2008, 01:15 PM
You have never, before now, said we are heading to a "form" of USSA. You've always just changed USSA!!!!!

You have missed many post, sorry that you just don't get it .

irishjayhawk
10-14-2008, 01:15 PM
Not anymore ......

Yes ?

So, you see why cutting spending is not the only thing that needs to be done.

irishjayhawk
10-14-2008, 01:16 PM
You have missed many post, sorry that you just don't get it .

:spock:

What?

Amnorix
10-14-2008, 01:18 PM
The spending is the culprit . It always has, raising taxes to offset is OK when the economy is good and stable, now is not the time. Cutting will allow more money to be used to stable the economy.Taxing business and corporates is like cutting your throat in these times,it will diminish jobs .

Don't be foolish. It's an income versus expenses question, and to simply point at one side of the ledger and say the problem is over there is ridiculous.

It's bad planning, stupid economics, ridiculous trickle-down theories, pork spending, a military that gorges itself at will, rampant inefficiencies, and entitlement programs that are probably too large, and going in the wrong direction in relation to underlying demographics.

But mainly, it's the fault of politicians who lack balls and are far too happy to pass the buck to the next Congress or President, and the next genreation, and stupid voters who refuse to understand that massive, systemic deficits are BAD.

I don't advocate immediate tax hikes, but as economic conditions improve, we need to rectify our fiscal house, and that will require tax hikes as well as controlling spending.

Amnorix
10-14-2008, 01:19 PM
The economy was stable, just coming off the gulf war then, many thought it was a gamble that it would stall the minimal growth from the previous year.

Clinton was lucky,it paid off ........the rest is history.

Luck. You call what Rubin and Summers and Clinton's team just pure dumb luck. A bunch of very bright people spend a HELL of a lot of time and political capital, and just got lucky when it worked out.

Don't be absurd.

The fact is that Republicans do not care about deficits and debt. They want to "starve the beast", but they're cutting our nose to spite our face.

ROYC75
10-14-2008, 01:33 PM
I don't advocate immediate tax hikes, but as economic conditions improve, we need to rectify our fiscal house, and that will require tax hikes as well as controlling spending.

I can't disagree, when the time is right and the economy can sustain a tax increase, it's the only way to cut into the deficit, providing we are cutting spending.

***SPRAYER
10-14-2008, 01:35 PM
I can't disagree, when the time is right and the economy can sustain a tax increase, it's the only way to cut into the deficit, providing we are cutting spending.

Didn't the IRS have record setting revenue 2001-2008?

I think history has shown that when you increase taxes, tax revenue decreases.

ROYC75
10-14-2008, 01:36 PM
Luck. You call what Rubin and Summers and Clinton's team just pure dumb luck. A bunch of very bright people spend a HELL of a lot of time and political capital, and just got lucky when it worked out.

Don't be absurd.

The fact is that Republicans do not care about deficits and debt. They want to "starve the beast", but they're cutting our nose to spite our face.

That's where you are wrong,republicans are just as concern with the deficit as the democrats.

Again, the economy was stable and had just came up, it was already rebounding after the Gulf War, so timing was perfect. Again, many feared the economy would stall from it,it didn't, the rest is history.

Amnorix
10-14-2008, 01:42 PM
Didn't the IRS have record setting revenue 2001-2008?

I think history has shown that when you increase taxes, tax revenue decreases.

Adjusted for inflation? Compared to GDP? Raw dollars?

Don't be a simpleton -- it won't get you far around here.

Amnorix
10-14-2008, 01:45 PM
That's where you are wrong,republicans are just as concern with the deficit as the democrats.

Riiiight. Because starving the beast is also attributed to Democrats?

The history is pretty stark. Republicans insist on tax cuts, but lack the balls to even try to cut spending. Meanwhile, they justify things by explaining that decreasing taxes increases revenue, and that the deficit is irrelevant -- it doesn't matter!!

Republican efforts to reduce the deficit since Reagan are basically non-existent. The Democrats did their duty and got POUNDED in 1994 for it by Republicans.

Again, the economy was stable and had just came up, it was already rebounding after the Gulf War, so timing was perfect. Again, many feared the economy would stall from it,it didn't, the rest is history.

Yes -- a history that points out that balancing the budget and reducing/eliminating the defiict has many positive side-effects. Ones the Democrats created by taking a huge risk at the polls.

***SPRAYER
10-14-2008, 01:46 PM
Don't be a simpleton -- it won't get you far around here.

Don't be an arrogant jackoff trying to impress people with your BS


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/c4iy2OfScQE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/c4iy2OfScQE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Amnorix
10-14-2008, 01:59 PM
Don't be an arrogant jackoff trying to impress people with your BS


Sorry, arrogant jackoff is part of the package. Everyone needs a hobby. :shrug: If you don't like it, feel free to put me on iggy.

Meanwhile, since you are unwilling or unable to answer the question (or present an honest set of data?) federal revenues declined as a percentage fo GDP:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/budgetchartbook.ppt#278,3,Total Federal Revenue as a Percentage of GDP, 1945-2007*

If you look at inflation-adjusted dollars, they also declined through the early 2000s.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/budgetchartbook.ppt#279,4,Federal Revenue, by Major Source, 1965-2007*

ROYC75
10-14-2008, 02:18 PM
Riiiight. Because starving the beast is also attributed to Democrats?

The history is pretty stark. Republicans insist on tax cuts, but lack the balls to even try to cut spending. Meanwhile, they justify things by explaining that decreasing taxes increases revenue, and that the deficit is irrelevant -- it doesn't matter!!

Republican efforts to reduce the deficit since Reagan are basically non-existent. The Democrats did their duty and got POUNDED in 1994 for it by Republicans.



Yes -- a history that points out that balancing the budget and reducing/eliminating the defiict has many positive side-effects. Ones the Democrats created by taking a huge risk at the polls.

Ok, go ahead and do it again, while we are still at war with a a failing economy.

You can get back to me in 4 years ....... FTR, it will be less that that where you will see it was the wrong thing to do.

BTA, an easy out is, Blame Bush.

Chiefshrink
10-14-2008, 02:22 PM
Hey Roy here is some more support for your thread and position here. :thumb:

AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM CALLS OBAMA “TAX CALCULATOR”
INACCURATE AND MISLEADING
New Obama “tax calculator” a deliberate attempt to deceive voters

WASHINGTON, DC—Americans for Tax Reform today questioned the accuracy of the new tax calculator found on Senator Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) website.

The calculator has several major errors/misleading statements, including:

The forgotten tax hike. By its own admission, the tax calculator ignores the unprecedented imposition of Social Security payroll taxes on small business profits exceeding $250,000 (where two-thirds of small business profits exist). This is despite the fact that Obama told Charlie Gibson on October 8th that he wants to keep the Social Security tax rate “the same” for these small business owners. This would result in a top small business tax rate of 54.9 percent—the highest level since the Carter Administration.
Small business tax hike. It tells those earning $250,000 or more that, “You will probably not get a tax cut” under an Obama Administration. Considering the Obama tax hike will result in a marginal tax rate approaching 50 percent on two-thirds of small business income (which resides in these households), one might call this a bit of an understatement
Spending, not tax cuts. Most of the “tax cuts” Obama claims credit for is in fact spending. “Refundable tax credits” means that if you zero out your income tax liability, the government gives you a welfare check. This isn’t an income tax cut—it’s spending. According to the Tax Foundation, one-third of households don’t have an income tax liability. It’s impossible to cut their income taxes, despite what this “calculator” says
Bait and switch. Everyone is told that they may be eligible for refundable credits including a college credit, a retirement savings credit, etc. However, these credits phase out on quite modest levels of income, thus deceiving voter.
###
Americans for Tax Reform is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose any and all federal and state tax increases. For more information, or to arrange an interview with Mr. Norquist please contact John Kartch at (202)785-0266 or by email at jkartch@atr.org.

Amnorix
10-14-2008, 02:27 PM
Ok, go ahead and do it again, while we are still at war with a a failing economy.

For the record, I do NOT propose a tax hike in the short term. I'd prefer to wait a year or three until the economy shakes out better. That said, I would continue some of the Bush-enacted cuts (AMT adjustment being a huge one), while discontinuing some that are going to phase out (inheritance tax, especially).

BTA, an easy out is, Blame Bush.

When he's been President for 8 years, and The Republicans had Congress for the first 6 of those, you're damn right we will. And well deserved it is.

ROYC75
10-14-2008, 02:34 PM
For the record, I do NOT propose a tax hike in the short term. I'd prefer to wait a year or three until the economy shakes out better. That said, I would continue some of the Bush-enacted cuts (AMT adjustment being a huge one), while discontinuing some that are going to phase out (inheritance tax, especially).



When he's been President for 8 years, and The Republicans had Congress for the first 6 of those, you're damn right we will. And well deserved it is.

Then you agree with me, Obama can't do what Clinton did after election. I do recall I said when the economy stabilizes.

And no, if Obama was to raise taxes across the board after getting elected, the economy would take a nose dive and it would be his fault,not Bush.

Now since we got that cleared up ....... Good day.

Amnorix
10-14-2008, 02:43 PM
Then you agree with me, Obama can't do what Clinton did after election. I do recall I said when the economy stabilizes.

Can he do it? Perhaps. He could certainly do revenue neutral tax reform. I'd rather have a complete re-write, to be honest. All we've had since 1986 is tack-ons to the tax code, and the whole thing is horribly byzantine.

The problem is anything that he doesn't do in the first 6 or so months likely never happens with him as President. Our system, for a variety of reasons, requires Presidents to implement their policies quickly, or never, regardless of external circumstance.

And no, if Obama was to raise taxes across the board after getting elected, the economy would take a nose dive and it would be his fault,not Bush.

Now since we got that cleared up ....... Good day.

If that's what you meant, I missed it. What Obama does is on Obama. I note, however, that Bush and the Republicans have left a complete mess in every sense of teh word, and cleaning it up will be very difficult and possibly painful. And no doubt Obama will take some blame if he institutes necessary reforms.

ROYC75
10-14-2008, 02:48 PM
Obama or McCain will inherit a financial mess and deficit. Either one will be able to do no good at first,but they must map out a course of action and be persistence with it to get anywhere.

Can we recover ? Yes, Clinton and many other presidents showed us we can.

Will we, a lot depends on the senate and the house, cutting spending and increasing revenues when the time is right is essential.

Chiefshrink
10-14-2008, 03:17 PM
Obama or McCain will inherit a financial mess and deficit. Either one will be able to do no good at first,but they must map out a course of action and be persistence with it to get anywhere.

Can we recover ? Yes, Clinton and many other presidents showed us we can.

Will we, a lot depends on the senate and the house, cutting spending and increasing revenues when the time is right is essential.

If we have Liberal Thugocracy all the way through the House and Senate-Good Luck cause it ain't gonna happen:shake: