Obama and Bush not so far apart...
-
02AccordEXV6;242050 wrote:
socialism...We discussed this at a bit of length on AIM Nick...and I've said this before countless times, I'm all for a flat income tax percentage across the board.
However, it could easily be argued that the trickle-down economics that have been implemented under Bush didn't work as planned/hoped.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04358.pdf#page=34 as you can see on this page, 61% of all US Corporations paid ZERO taxes during.....Bill Clinton's final term in office. So to say that all democrats are socialist is wrong. To say that the rich were overtaxed under Clinton is somewhat misleading....and all that Obama has suggested is rolling back the taxes to what they were under Clinton.... Maybe that is why so many new jobs were created then?? Maybe it will create new jobs now? (Pure speculation, I realize this...but throwing it out there for debate none-the-less)
Now here is the real irony in this.....I've heard from nearly all of you that you think the "bail out" should have gone to the people of this country and not to the corporations, yet when a tax plan comes out that might just do that, you all seem to think it is the most evil thing ever....
I hear that you pay too much in taxes, that it consumes too much of your income....then you bitch when someone wants to lower them for well over 99% of this board and 95% of Americans.
You bitch that the "minority interests" get all the benefits, then when a program that benefits the majority comes out you are all against it.
Here is my guess (not guarantee....guess): If the middle class has more of their hard-earned money to spend, they are likely to buy more things/invest in their future...which in turn causes even less people to potentially need assistance from the gov't down the road (huge savings right there). If they spend more money with your business (if you are in the 250k+ club) you should easily offset any losses due to additional taxes you would have incurred by an increase in volume of business....much like the Walmart philosophy of not making as much on every product sold, but they sell a shitload of products to make up for because they can sell it to a wider variety of consumers.
-
integra_gsr98;242057 wrote:
Reagan ftw. Currently wearing a Reagan/Bush 84 t-shirt.I agree 100%, 2 of my top 3 presidents since WW2 (based on info that I have absorbed over the years) are Republicans.
-
http://wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html
Obama's 95% Illusion
It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.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.
[Review & Outlook] APIt'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:
[Review & Outlook]-
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.
Wow Chuck, I'm surprised you actually said (though not directly) that you pretty much don't care about more Government control of our lives...I would have expected you of all people to realize that any move towards socialism is bad.
Also I still don't get how he plans to somehow ruin our healthcare system by trying to socialize it and STILL lower taxes on everyone but the top 5%...it simply wouldn't work.
-
-
put it this way obama plans incorporate more gov't control
the basis of this economy is free market capitalism
when you start fucking with that you become a socialist
when you become a socialist you limit growth, who wants to start up a business when you cannot succeed...meaning growth? i know i sure wouldnt because the govt wants to tell me how to run it..what gives me the motivation?
-
But but but...everything the government gets involves in suddenly works so much better because it destroys all that red tape and corruption!
HAHAHA sorry I could barely keep a straight face typing that one out...
-
tjamz;242037 wrote:
Torbs, I fail to see how a tax cut for the working class is a bad thing or how it is a welfare check. He said the MAJORITY of the people would get tax cuts...not extra payments. If you work and earn a living and make less than $250,000 you will get a tax cut if his plan goes forward.Tell me why this is bad?
Is it because you will have more money and won't have to try and negotiate every single deal you try and make with someone?
Is it because I will have more money to buy things for my wife and kid?
Is it because people that are working hard for their money might have a chance to put some of it away?
Is it because businesses should according to the past 2 stimulus packages bring about more people spending money and boosting our economy?
Or is it because a liberal is talking about making a move that would normally be seen as fiscally conservative (ok...fiscally moderate) and presenting it to the people? I mean, come on...I've never seen a tax break that the republican party didn't like!
Agreed. Except for the kids part. i have no kids.
Torbs why are you angry that I dislike Glen Beck? Is it beacuse you follow his every word and thought (and comments/quotes apparently)?
-
tjamz;242042 wrote:
By returning tax levels to what they were during the Reagan administration? Reagan is Mr. Conservative...surely he should have cut taxes if it were fiscally responsible to do so!The gov't already controls nearly every aspect of your life in some way shape or form, what new things do you see Obama bringing to the table that will affect YOU or ME?
So basically saying that all because they control many aspects of my life that it's ok for them to control more...because what Obama brings to the table is more gov't control.
What in the blue hell is wrong with you...
-
Chuck sounds just like obama anymore...........
Just keeps rambling and talking forever.......every second trying to prove to himself that he is right....
and seriously whoever thinks Obama isn't a socialist either needs to take a look at the constitution or GTFO....
.
.
.Please answer this one question for me Chuck..... just a simple large or small...... that is it, nothing else
Was the original intent of our fouding fathers and Constitution to have a LARGE Gov. or a SMALL Gov.???
-
StangerBanger96;242062 wrote:
http://wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.htmlWow Chuck, I'm surprised you actually said (though not directly) that you pretty much don't care about more Government control of our lives...I would have expected you of all people to realize that any move towards socialism is bad.
Also I still don't get how he plans to somehow ruin our healthcare system by trying to socialize it and STILL lower taxes on everyone but the top 5%...it simply wouldn't work.
This is what I said:
Now here is the real irony in this.....I've heard from nearly all of you that you think the "bail out" should have gone to the people of this country and not to the corporations, yet when a tax plan comes out that might just do that, you all seem to think it is the most evil thing ever....
I hear that you pay too much in taxes, that it consumes too much of your income....then you bitch when someone wants to lower them for well over 99% of this board and 95% of Americans.
You bitch that the "minority interests" get all the benefits, then when a program that benefits the majority comes out you are all against it.
And here is what I'll add to that: The gov't already controls every aspect of your life (which I don't think is good). I don't see either candidate doing anything to change this. I do see one candidate who is trying to take the opposite road that McCain/Bush have traveled and try trickle-up economics. More money in the hand of middle class (or lower) taxpayers is a good thing. The money will get spent...if not spent, invested.
As I'm typing this I see more responses from Nick B and others...so I'll attempt to answer what I can:
-
I don't see this as more gov't control....actually the opposite. I see 95% of the people having LESS gov't control.
-
I don't see how the gov't can fuck this up if they are giving you/me/everyone you know practically more of their tax dollars back to spend as they choose. If they were saying "In giving this money back, you must use it to purchase treasury bonds or stock in XYZ company" then i'd see it as gov't control.
-
Capitalism only works if your customer can afford your services/products. Allowing more people to spend money with you will make you more money in the long run.
-
I agree that Gov't involvement sucks in general. I can also say that THE BEST/EASIEST TO USE healthcare program (from an insurance processor/clinic acct receivables/business office manager at a hospital perspective) available is Medicare/Medicaid. 1/10 the hoops to jump through vs. private insurance companies. Payments ALWAYS come on time to the hospital/clinic if the paperwork is filled out properly. Never are they denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions or being out of their network. That is the ONE program that they do extremely well. Now, I'm not saying that I want universal healthcare...I just threw that out stating that they do get it right sometimes.
-
In normal circumstances I'd agree that the country may need a different approach to taxes than what Obama is currently presenting. At this time my opinion is that we need a short term (4 years...8 years....I don't know) tax break for the middle class....even if that means slightly higher taxes for the upper class. Remember, tax tables are never constant...nearly every president has messed with them in some way shape or form. At this time, I think Obama has it right....if/when the economy straightens out the levels will need to be adjusted again.
-
I don't believe (but could be wrong) that he plans to magically have the gov't insure everyone and that you'd lose your current provider. Rather he wants to open the plan-format that is presently available to congressional members to the general public. Having more people insured is good. Why? Because the more people insured, the lower the total risk to the insurer. Not everyone is going to use their plan to the fullest, most won't even come close. Yes, there will be a slight shift in burden of major catastrophic payouts from the insurance companies to the gov't under Obama's plan, so the worst of the worst will be picked up by the gov't (most would have been anyway as many file for bankruptcy when they have a major illness that their insurance won't cover...but under this plan, only the major catastrophe would be absorbed by gov't and the "normal" dr visits, etc.. would still be covered by the insurance company.)
-
If you want to get rid of socialism, get rid of the corporate tax breaks completely. By essentially investing in the company, the gov't has taken an interest in seeing that company succeed by allowing so many loopholes/write-offs. I mean, this is a free market society, right? So why not tax them appropriately? Why do we allow them to write off anything at all? Isn't part of socialism gov't subsidizing a business? By allowing them to write off their purchases/operating expenses you are subsidizing them w/ reduced taxes. So, to spin this 180 degrees, I think your (the Republican) tax plan is socialist by nature.
-
-
zbrown;242079 wrote:
Chuck sounds just like obama anymore...........Just keeps rambling and talking forever.......every second trying to prove to himself that he is right....
I don't feel the need to prove I'm right, I take much more pleasure in proving others wrong
and seriously whoever thinks Obama isn't a socialist either needs to take a look at the constitution or GTFO....
I never said he wasn't socialist in some of his thinking/ideas...I just think that at this time in American history a socialistic approach to taxes may be a necessary evil. I think that Obama will do far more good that harm to this country overall, something I CANNOT say about McCain with a clear conscience (there are some things that I think McCain will do better at).
BTW, I have provided reasoning to my thoughts at every turn. Please point to the sections of the constitution where you think Obama is not following the preset rules. Or do you just listen to what Hannety/Limbaugh/etc... say and repeat and accept it as gospel
Please answer this one question for me Chuck..... just a simple large or small...... that is it, nothing else
Was the original intent of our fouding fathers and Constitution to have a LARGE Gov. or a SMALL Gov.???
Undeniably small. I'd LOVE to see gov't programs reduced and spending reduced.
Now, I'll put this back on you.... I know you farm, I know you have said that you don't need the gov't checks to keep you in business. Here is your chance to shine..... I challenge you not to accept/cash any check you receive from the government in the form of subsidy, CRP payment or ANY other incentive that you are eligible. I challenge you to get your neighbors to all do the same. Until that day comes, you have no more right than I to say that you are in favor of small government and the ending of gov't programs.
-
tjamz;242092 wrote:
Please point to the sections of the constitution where you think Obama is not following the preset rules.Bedtime..... but i may have to look tomorrow, it seems i missed the part where health care is a right to be provided
plus numerous other things......
-
Also, wasn't it the REPUBLICAN candidate that announced he was going to suspend his campaign to vote for/work on one of the most Socialist bills of all time?
And for Nick....I challenge YOU to not accept anyone who has qualified for an FHA loan to buy a home from you and certainly not to recommend that they look at FHA loans with their banker.
-
zbrown;242094 wrote:
Bedtime..... but i may have to look tomorrow, it seems i missed the part where health care is a right to be providedplus numerous other things......
Obama has NEVER said it was a right to be provided. He may have said that we have a responsibility to make healthcare more affordable to everyone...but so has McCain. I WILL TAKE THIS BACK BASED ON THE BIT OF THE DEBATE I SAW.....THOUGH I THINK THE CONTEXT IS SLIGHTLY SKEWED AND OBAMA HIMSELF IS TO BLAME FOR SKEWING THE CONTEXT
The constitution never said that motor vehicles should have to pass crash test ratings either...but they do. Why? Because it helps ensure the safety of the people of the united states.
Yes, that is an absurd argument....but you pointed out an absurd untruth, so I felt it only fair to counter with something equally as absurd.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login