Obama: Recession could delay rescinding tax cuts

You need to cut spending.

No you have to cut spending.

The current level of taxes must go down and the Democratic party will not face this until it is too late. Now, because the Republican party is ultimately run by the same 1000 interested parties they have the same problems but will talk about it as their issue not being addressed by the other side of the asile when they really have little or no effort invested in making happen. You should vote all them out of office this November!

Obama is saying he will spend more. This is very bad for everyone. The deeper the economy sinks the spending will become a unbearable weight and we will have a market crash.

Yep, A McCain Palin ticket is the only way to cut spending the way it needs to be cut. A 5% spending cut across the board would bring the budget back into balance. I am willing to see my pet project (space) cut that much. How about yours?

But the thing we must remember is that the Dems control the house and the senate. Any cuts in taxes and/or spending must be approved by them. They will never do it, especially if McCain wins. They will never allow a Republican president to look good. I don't Think George W. has appealed enough to the American people about the shenanigans of the Dems in Congress. No one was better at doing this than Reagan, and I think George W. blew it by not following that example.

Just so that I'm clear on your comment conservativevouce5000, you don't believe GW did ENOUGH to divide our nation? He should have done more to widen the divide?

You're right about the congressional spending. 14 years of a Republican congress has created the largest financial black hole this country has ever seen.

I think that the political crap on both sides for the last 2 years has been terrible. What I am simply saying is that when the American people are kept aprised (not just those of us who choose to keep ourselves informed) the pressure on both sides is increased to do what McCain wants Washington to do, which is "work for the American people." This means ALL Americans not just the left or the right.

It seems to me that the only time anyone even cares about what Washington is doing on a day to day basis, as we pay their way, is during a Presidential election cycle. So that means both sides go pretty much unchecked the other 3 years a president is in office.

And as for the 14 years under the Pubs, Bush took over from Clinton who left things a complete mess. Might I remind you of the internet bubble? You know, since Al Gore invented the internet, you would have thought Clinton would have been able to foresee this and prevent it. But he didn't and Bush was the one left to clean up the mess. He hasn't been perfect, but he has done the best he could with what was left to him.

You honestly believe what you just posted don't you conservativevoice? I guess you do or you wouldn't have posted it.

What amazes me is how you can believe that the sun rises in the west. "Clinton left a mess"!!?? Do you mean that a surplus was a problem?

Bush has been given EVERYTHING he's asked for. From tax cuts to the war. With his lock-step Republican congress, signing statements and veto's, W has been unfettered in implementing his policies. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

You are right though. Bush did the best that he could. Not for you or the American people. He did the best he could for the top 1%, (remember, that's who he called his "base"). He and his buddies have scored big time while the rest of us are left holding the bag.

Yet somehow, someway, you reach back almost 8 years to lay the blame in Clinton's lap. Amazing, really.

What is even more amazing is how average working people, are duped by the "elite" investor class into continually voting AGAINST their own best interest. It's easy to see why. They will rob you blind, cheat the system, make you pay, and then throw "Gay Marriage" on the ballot.

So all good Republicans make their way to the polls and vote for W, because he's a man of God. "Gosh, we can't have gay marriage in America", that would destroy the family values so espoused by the right. No matter how many times we take it up the shorts from the Republicans, people can't get past the social issues.

But if you would take just a moment to tell me about the "Clinton mess" that W had to clean up, I would really appreciate it. Gosh, I might even vote for a Republican this time!

Ken:

Please remember next time you speak to your boss, that he is one of those "elite" folks.

I would just go right ahead and dress him down.

Fact is that the "elites" (business owners, etc) create the jobs for this Country.

If the government tried to do that, we'd be, in a word, screwed.

What is even more amazing is how average working people, are duped by the "elite" investor class into continually voting AGAINST their own best interest.

I'm an investor, as are many of the people I know. And we're not rich - we're just trying to save something for retirement and historically, stocks have provided the best returns. The investor class includes a whole lot of average working people, retirees, etc. Throwing more taxes at small businesses doesn't do much for our average investor class.

"Clinton left a mess"!!?? Do you mean that a surplus was a problem?

The mess conservativevoice was referring to was the internet bubble, not the budget surplus. I actually think both parties contributed to that, though. Same with the housing bubble - Clinton's administration put pressure on the lenders to make exotic loans available to people who simply couldn't afford to buy houses, because they should participate in the American Dream whether it's realistic or not. Then Bush's administration didn't regulate the CDOs and all the other things that were being done with these loans - which again, never should have been issued in the first place.

Katrix:

I often wonder how many people on the Vine actually save and invest. It would be an interesting statistic.

I do know that his stance on capital gains has me worried as hell and I may take my savings out of the market and go cash for awhile.

Ken:

Why is it every time you lefties don't have anything better to add to the conversation that you throw our gay marriage or some other racially based attack? Why is that you attack conservatives because they have moral boundaries that they believe in? If you want to be gay, be gay. I don't care. But I am opposed to "gay marriage" because I believe marriage to be a union created by God, and God abhors homosexuality. But I will not attack you for being gay and tell you to repent. That is between you and God, but for crying out loud will you please STOP shoving it down our throats!?!

I often wonder how many people on the Vine actually save and invest. It would be an interesting statistic.

I would guess it would be higher than the national average - it would be interesting to see.

I've been looking into moving the funds from my IRA that I don't have in a position, to a TIPS ETF due to inflation. They sure aren't doing a damn thing in a money market fund.

@conservativevoice5000
#1.11

I guess you missed the point that I was trying to make. I'm not gay, though I believe in 'live and let live'.

The point is, that no matter how loathsome the candidate or their policies are, too many people are "One Issue Voters". Having read most of your posts, I don't believe it is the case with you. You defend the policies of W from the get go. And that's fine.

It's as if it doesn't matter if a chipmunk were running, if they were against gay marriage, or abortion or what ever 'moral' issue you claim, that's who gets your vote, even if it's not in the best interest of your pocketbook or best for the country.

that's who gets your vote, even if it's not in the best interest of your pocketbook or best for the country

Ken, I will be voting my pocketbook. Obama means more money for the jack&%^# in Washington, and less for my family. More for failed social programs and less for my family. More wealth redistribution and less for my family.

The nation has a lot of problems today. I don't live in a happy, pink bubble and am not blind to the fact that nobody seems to give a rat's patooty what the average American's struggles are. But NO ONE can EVER convince me that giving the morons in Washington more money with a far left agenda is a good thing.

I will vote for McCain because he is the lesser of 2 evils, and I also know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he will keep my family and my country safe.

Yeah.. for the individual above that thinks McCain will cut spending..Have the republicans cut spending the last 8 years??? There's your answer.. NO!! We have higher fuel prices, higher food prices, higher un-employment.. at what point in all this was the last 8 years successful enough to keep doing what we are doing?? Just wondering what deductive reasoning skills some of you are lacking here. Not that the Dems are going to do any better.. They are all worthless, and should be replaced in mass...

But NO ONE can EVER convince me that giving the morons in Washington more money with a far left agenda is a good thing.

Then I won't even try. I suppose giving those in Washington a blank check to borrow from the Chinese for a right wing agenda is acceptable. You only think it won't cost you and your family. Stay tuned.

Robert:

I agree. They are all worthless, just after personal power and money, that's all it is.

And at our expense.

Thank you Wmolaw! My point exactly. They are worthless, they waste OUR money and beg us for more because both sides are incapable of seeing the little guy. They are too focused on their own agendas and pocketbooks.

And the point is that if you want to get rid of them you have to bring in new blood. Gov. Palin isn't from Washington. She has even stated that being a politician wasn't her life's ambition. That is more than I can say for Obama, Biden and even McCain (although at least being a politician wasn't his first career, his was a military career).

Very interesting , his big plan is delayed, and wasn't his "I'll start bringing all the troops home the first day I'm in office" also something that he realized he couldn't do? Its funny how the platform he ran on to get the nomination is completely different now, sounds like he has a problem of some sort.

conservativevoice - I wonder how comfortable you are knowing that China owns our debt Bush made?? I am not comfortable knowing we are making them the most powerful communist coutry in the world.

Not over it:

One good thing about owing debt, which we have learned over the years, it ain't too tough to default.

craig19,

sarah palin doesn't have the political clout to "move" anyone to the right. so,heh heh to you. the only thing moving will be her worthless butt back to alaska.

Seems to me like a smart man would revise his plan according to the facts of what is happening to the economy. Unlike McCain who sticks to his plan no matter what and never seems to say much other than "we can get it going. Trust us again."

pontiacmn->

lol! we must stay the course! full speed ahead -> right over the falls lol!

Obama is at least flexible on some things. It takes a person with both brains and guts to change his mind on an issue in midstream, even if he risks being called a flip-flopper.

It's moot anyway. The Bush cuts aren't due to expire for a couple of more years.

Beyond the cheap rhetoric, this year's historic election really comes down a battle between White Affluent America and Everyone Else.

flexible???.....its called FLIP FLOP, He tell you want you want to hear and you actually believe it.

I keep hearing the Republicans tout tax cuts as a way to financial prosperity.

Taxing the wealthy stifles job creation and taxing corporations sends jobs oversees. This is the argument right? Ok, let's extend the logic.

Let's not tax the wealthy at all. Nada, zip, zero! Keep all of your money. We could call it "No Taxes For the Rich". (McCain thinks you have to have $5 million to be rich so no taxes for anyone with an income of $5 million or more.

No more taxes for corporations. They no longer have to pay anything. I suppose to stay competitive, they would also require that all environmental laws be rescinded as well. Toxic waste into the rivers and air, NO problem, right?

Now the Republicans have their tax cuts and industry isn't fettered by silly laws about clean water and air.

What do we do when the Chinese come knocking on the door and asking for their interest payment for the money they've loaned us?

Any body want to clear this up for me?

Ken:

If you understood tax and the incentives/disincentives they provide, you may wish to revise your strategy.

Corporations should not be taxed, at all.

And not NO tax, but a flat tax.

And we would have the greatest financial engine in the world, bar none.

Spot on, wmolaw!

I believe anyone interested in understanding basic economics would do well to read Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt. It can be purchased at Amazon.com (that company of elites that made it possible for me to purchase a book today without having to get dressed),

or it can be read for free at www.jim.com

Enjoy!

Dave:

I just don't understand how people will continually think that the government, if we give them enough money, will solve all of our ills.

It won't happen, has never happened, and will never happen.

It will be quite interesting to see, however, what happens to tax revenue when and if Obama is elected, and if he has a dem congress that will actually increase the taxes which he wishes to see increased.

I suspect, as history shows, that tax revenues will decline as taxpayers find ways around the increased taxes.

I suspect, as history shows, that tax revenues will decline as taxpayers find ways around the increased taxes.

Wmolaw:

Don't forget that his plan to increase the tax rate for all businesses making over $250K a year will pick up shop and move to Indonesia, or China, or God knows where else, where the taxes are more favorable to them, not to mention how much money they would save on the cheap labor.

That is a good point..We need to stop trading with those countries on such a broad scale and then these companies wont be able to go over there and set up shop, because of our increased taxation on imports. Give Mexico the right incentive to produce the same products we import from China.. Keep our interests on this side of the globe.. the Chinese are getting rich off us. Even my military gear says made in China on the tags!! TERRIBLE!
Oh and just a comment on the "Flip-Flop" of Obama up above... the world is ever changing and situations change all the time.. If you cant change with them you outlive your usefullness..Improvise, ADAPT, and Overcome!! It is our ability to reason things out that allows us to make good judgements. If we are so closed minded we dont listen to different ideas that may change ours, then we dont really need to be in office!!!

Robert:

The problem with Mexico is corruption, corruption and violence. If that could be solved, I would not necessarily disagree.

As to change, sure. It's good for Obama, and for McCain.

I just get tired of folks saying change is good for one, but not for the other.

Oh and just a comment on the "Flip-Flop" of Obama up above... the world is ever changing and situations change all the time..

Robert:

Just remember this if Obama gets elected and turns around and breaks EVERY campaign promise he has made because, what did you say? Oh yeah, "the world is ever changing and situations change all the time..."

Now to be fair, I think that no matter who gets elected, once they get in there and realize just how bad everything is, they will be forced to adapt to the "ever changing situations".

My point? Just don't believe everything BHO promises, just like I don't believe everything Mac says, so I won't be disappointed. There are some things about candidates besides their "plans" that are more important. What is their character? What are their ethics? What have they done to prove themselves worthy to lead? What is the worst thing they could possibly do if elected? What is the best thing they could do? These are the questions we should be asking.

I think both candidates would be wise to learn from the mistake Pres. Bush made when he took his victory as a "blanket approval for anything from the American people". That caused a further divide in our country.

As a person who's never changed his mind about anything, even when the world around me changes on a daily basis, I agree with you whole heartedly, HITG.

What the hell is it with the idea that our leaders must never, ever, ever change their minds? He made a small shift in his policy, provided a damn good reason for it, and frankly I'm glad he feels that way. As bad as our situation is, making sure our economy recovers in the here and now is a top priority.

the guy is worse than John Kerry; its not that he changes his mind so much as it is he doesn't even appear to know his own mind. he has no convictions.

Um HTG I would stay from the flip flop comments when McCain is your guy. While he's trying to figure out how many homes he has, he's been flip flopping as well. Here are just a few:

1. McCain thought Bush's warrantless wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.

2. McCain insisted that everyone, even "terrible killers," "the worst kind of scum of humanity," and detainees at Guantanamo Bay, "deserve to have some adjudication of their cases," even if that means "releasing some of them." McCain now believes the opposite.

3. He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

4. In February, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.

5. McCain favored closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay before he was against it.

6. When Barack Obama talked about going after terrorists in Pakistani mountains with Predators, McCain criticized him for it. He's since come to the opposite conclusion.

7. McCain recently claimed that he was the "greatest critic" of Rumsfeld's failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as "a mission accomplished." In March 2004, he said, "I'm confident we're on the right course." In December 2005, he said, "Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course."

8. McCain defended "privatizing" Social Security. Now he says he's against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)

9. McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn't.

10. McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.

Umm What is this McLames 3rd hail Mary pass of his campaign? Lets see he first tried to scare us (Strong on national security), then call us unpatriotic(He was a POW you know), now he is the change guy. lil odd, what is he going to be next week? The hike his pants up to his chest guy and if your ball lands in his yard, its his!!!!

I got on the Obama bandwagon, (There is no actual band wagon, but that would be so cool if there was), And from the start hi message was CHANGE, it said CHANGE on his web site from the git go, it said change when I got a flier about 2 years ago, And umm ya it still says that on the web site and on everything else around Obama.

It amuses me even now, how those bantering the words "flip-flpper" really don't even know what Kerry flip flopped on. Want a reminder? No? Didn't think so but here it is anyway.
In a bill regarding the funding for Iraq, Kerry was in FAVOR of the bill that required Iraq to pay the U.S. back out of future oil revenue. That's the one he voted FOR.

The Republicans would have none of it and that bill was defeated. The one Kerry voted AGAINST, was the republican bill, absent any requirements for an Iraqi repayment.

So the ditto-heads latched onto a bumper sticker phrase and ran with it.

With, (as of last report), $87 billion in "excess" revenue sitting in Iraq, sounds like we should have passed the bill that Kerry was in FAVOR of, not the one that the Republicans passed.

But for so many ditto-heads, if it's more complex than a bumper sticker, it's usually over their heads.

The mark of a great leader is to sometimes make adjustments for the greater good. Admit mistakes, encourage and promote others. Bush/Cheney can't do one of these. If anyone tells you it's a bad idea to CHANGE your mind, their ^ucking stupid, just like Bush.

Are you saying that any of what McShames SS has done are simple adjustments? Are you sure they are not desperate attempts?

So the ditto-heads latched onto a bumper sticker phrase and ran with it.

Sorry, it was Kerry who did it. Amid accusations of being a serial panderer (which he was), Kerry came out with the "I voted for...before I voted against" line. His opponents couldn't have planned that, only Kerry as the dumbest candidate in modern American history. And his opponents wouldn't have been doing their jobs if they had just let it slide, as you seem to think they should have.

I know it stinks that one of the best lines against Kerry in the campaign came from the mouth of Kerry himself...

Besides, I thought Kerry's version was that he planned on supporting it but since it was going to pass anyway, he made a vote of conscience.

Two bills, two votes. He voted FOR the one requiring Iraq to pay us back. He voted AGAINST the one that didn't require them to pay us back. TWO BILLS.

He voted for it, before he voted against it. The "best line in the campaign" was twisted by the ditto-heads who went no deeper into what it was that he was actually saying. Sheeesh!

Big difference between not making up your mind, and adapting to a situation that ever changing....If you are working on a project and someone offers a solution to a problem that you hadnt thought of, and you take it.. is it because you cant make up your mind or your were open-minded enough to listen!! It is you who are closed minded.. go get educated!

Two bills, two votes. He voted FOR the one requiring Iraq to pay us back. He voted AGAINST the one that didn't require them to pay us back. TWO BILLS.

Source please.

The way I recall it, first Kerry called it a misspeak, claiming that he was tired and it was late at night. But wait, it was actually spoken at a noon rally.

This is new to me about the Iraq funding issue, but with the multiple changes in the story, I'll grant you it was probably said.

The FACTS about the two bills is that one included a Kerry sponsored amendment whose goal was to undermine the Bush tax cuts. He voted for that. It failed. He then voted against a similar bill that didn't include reversing the tax cuts and made it known that he wouldn't support it unless it included changing the tax cuts.

Kerry, that fiscal conservative, then claimed it was a vote of conscience, that he knew it would pass, but this idiot presidential candidate wanted to be on record as opposing it over the funding issue. Kerry, who has signed onto thousands of spending bills that didn't include creative ways to fund the spending, suddenly had an attack of fiscal responsibility, which just coincidentally had to do with our military and the war they were engaged in. It wasn't about anything any more noble than politicizing a vote to fund an ongoing conflict.

None of that changes the fact that it was Kerry, who was already being branded a flip-flopper (or panderer, to be more accurate), who uttered these wounding words.

My worry is that there are the die hard republicans out there that tune out logic and for some bizarre reason, will still vote their party. What is wrong with these people? Don't they want this country to succeed and get back on its feet?

mpg & carol-

yes, we want our country to prosper, that's not really the issue, as that is the goal on both sides of the isle. And, I understand what you're saying about 'how do we do this? we just do it" mentality, but, that's what I'm hearing from the Obama campaign. In all his speeches about change, and lowering taxes on the middle class, on creating jobs, on healthcare for everyone, what I don't hear is the "how". The message of change is all well and good, but I've yet to hear substance to back it up. Even his website doesn't outline how he'd go about implementing the change he advocates.

In all seriousness, I've voted for Democrats and Republicans in the course of my life. Before the conventions we had some 20 months of public vetting with primaries and debates. I'm very familiar with each candidate. I've been deeply troubled that a story as huge and as potentially damaging as takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be, is met with such meaningless nonsense, such that McCain and Palin have supplied thus far.

That kind of policy vagueness on positions works fine for a campaign to end illiteracy, or litter, or drug abuse, if you were running a small town.

MPG, love that snark stuff. New environmental cause: save the Alaskan Land Snark.

Alexandra, to concentrate for a moment on the health care issue. This is a problem near my heart since I spend my time providing the fall-back care that is provided by the present system. I am an ER doctor and we take care of all comers. It is enormously expensive and inefficient, not to mention downright dangerous. McCain's plan is woefully slipshod. A $5000 rebate for buying insurance that costs over $12,000 will not insure any more people than are now insured. Most of my patients cannot afford a $7,000 outlay. Most of my patient's work from paycheck to paycheck. Not only is this plan designed to offer no help for those who most need it, it is designed to help boost insurance company profits. These are the same companies that put up every sort of barrier to prevent paying for the care that they are under contract to pay. Then McCain wants to tax the benefits themselves. How does all this make sense?

Alexandra
This story states a policy position taken by Obama. It may not be something you agree with, or something even I completely agree with, but it's an actual position. There's this belief that somehow Obama never states his policies on taxes, the war, health care or education. Nonsense. I believe, as you probably do, that those positions aren't spelled out with a lot of point-by-point detail, but that's because it's only a framework on how to deal with really difficult situations. For instance, Obama in this article is stating on-record that he would consider changing his tax policy, of taxing the top 3%, if he thought it would affect our ability to deal with a recession. Hey, maybe it's not a good idea, maybe it is a good idea, but it's not 'let's just fix it', or 'make it happen' governing. How does John McCain plan to enact is 'get it going' policy? Will he really simply cut taxes again? That's an irresponsible position to take if you're not willing to spell out why. Here you have the government potentially adding to our tax burden by taking over these companies because the failures of the private half Freddie and Fannie risked an even more disastrous result to our economy.

Sen. Obama was asked a question and he's given a thoughtful answer. There's change for you.

lol mpg1971 !

another tactic the republicans tend to use is to rename the problems...

we renamed the starving to "suffering from food insecurities" &
the unemployed will be renamed to 'the leisure class'

there, no more starving people and we've whipped the unemployment issue. everyones happy!

ROFLMAO!

Even his website doesn't outline how he'd go about implementing the change he advocates.

If you had been there and poked around you wouldn't have just said that. McCain's on the other hand....

McCain had access to health care while he was a POW. Most Americans do not have access to health care, maybe he found a solution?? I had to cancel a prescription, they wanted $340, and there is no generic brand. No I have to do a lil research on my own, thank you Wal Mart and the $4 prescriptions, I hope you have something that is close to what I need. LoL need to do that Monday, my heart has been skipping beats Hahahaahahaahaha ahhhh @!$%#!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-(

@carolg,

My worry is that there are the die hard republicans out there that tune out logic and for some bizarre reason, will still vote their party. What is wrong with these people?

Going back, probably to FDR, the Democratic party has been identified with helping the little guy. I'm speaking in broad generalities here so please don't knit-pick.

Roosevelt did some pretty drastic things during the depression. Over stepped the authority of the president according to some, much the same as many feel the current president has done.

By creating programs that attempt to address social issues, the Democrats have been tagged with the "tax and spend liberal" label by the conservatives.

Traditionally, and again generally, the Republicans have identified with big business, banks and investors, i.e. the rich.

Conservatives don't like what the Democrats spend their taxes on. Welfare, food stamps, social security, Head Start, WIC, Low income housing etc. And yes, I will be the first to admit that many have abused these programs.

But in the next level, the conservatives have convinced themselves that government is the problem, and that is extreme. Take regulations. Most conservatives believe that less regulation is ALWAYS better. Let the "free market" sort it out.

How many more examples do we have to see that shows, when certain industries are deregulated, little people suffer. Housing, energy, even food inspection!

The Republicans defeated a bill that would have required the industry to label produce so it could be traced back to it's origin. (Locating the fields where salmonella was present for example). The industry lobbyists climbed all over it saying it would be too expensive and too much regulation. The result, more salmonella.

Some regulation is required, (should I even mention Freddie & Fannie & Enron?).
Some social programs are required to keep society functioning.

I view this as the biggest difference between the two mind-sets.

And here is where your statement comes into play carolg, the hard core Republicans are so entrenched in their beliefs, that they will continually vote AGAINST their own self interest. I'm not talking about the top 1%, that's the Republican parties base. I'm talking about the blue collar guy who thinks the Democrats will raise HIS/HER taxes and give it to welfare cheats.

I'm not going to change anyones mind here. I just wanted to lay it out as I see it. The only thing you'll get a true conservative to agree to pay taxes for is defence. Bombs & bullets. Beyond that, you're on your own. If you're down & out, it's because your lazy. Not because people like Mitt Romney made hundreds of millions of dollars in hostile take overs and eliminated jobs. For them, it's just more efficient and more money trickles up.

And what specifically is McCain's plan? His lips are moving but I can't hear his words.

This is an outright admission by Obama that increasing taxes hurts the economy

Is it really? Or is it an outright admission that only the very rich decide who gets to be president?

Whatever his plan is, at least he is moving in the right direction - reducing taxes!
Obama on the other hand is moving in the opposite direction - increasing taxes!
I think I'd rather take my chances with McCain...

"Whatever his plan is, at least he is moving in the right direction - reducing taxes!"

Dave: #1. You don't know his policy or plan, just that you support it? #2. His tax cuts aren't going to help you unless you happen to own ExxonMobil . . .

Dave...
Any thoughts on why, under Dem. leadership, our economy usually enjoys rapid growth along with a more equal wealth distribution, but under Rep. we have experience slow growth in both the economy as well as personal income and a widening gap in wealth distribution? How about the fact that, just to keep our economy running, we have to borrow $4 billion per day? Whether you like it or not, tax increases are now a must. If we don't increase gov't revenue the nation will go bankrupt. It's only a question of who to tax.

Well, as a matter of fact I do own Exxon/Mobil along with several million other Americans, including, probably you if you own a mutual fund in a retirement account.

Very astute, yet not quite my point. You -- personally -- aren't getting a tax break from McCain's plan.

BAjunkie,

It often takes 15 minutes to refute a five-second sound bite.

The great economist, Frederic Bastiat (bastiat.org), explained the difference between a good economist and a bad economist as follows: A bad economist looks only at the immediate consequences of a policy while the good economist looks at not only the immediate consequences but the long-term consequences and potentially unforeseen consequences.

A valid example of this phenomenon is the social security act of 1937. They neglected to consider things like medical advances, etc., that would extend the average life span of Americans and eventually make the system top heavy with more recipients than contributors.

We made the same mistake in the 1970s with passage of Medicare and Medicaid. In the 1960s when they were passed it was estimated that Medicare would only be costing about $70 billion by 1990. In fact, by 1990 it was over $300 billion. (My numbers might be a little off because I don't have the data in front of me).

But, to answer your question, if you do some serious research into the issue, you will find that our economy DOES NOT usually enjoy rapid growth when democrats are in power and slow growth when republicans are in power. Just the opposite.

If we are borrowing $4 billion per day it is because the Federal government is spending $4 billion per day more than it is receiving in taxes. We currently have a national debt in excess of $9 Trillion dollars...the result of excess spending over tax revenues by Congress (where all appropriations originate) and the democrats have controlled Congress for about 90% of the last 50 years.

Tax increases are a must? Why? Spending decreases are an option, also (albeit, a tough one for politicians who want to get reelected).

Anyone who would like to understand the economy better should read Economics In One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt, which can be read for free on the internet...just google the title.

TB in SD
On the contrary, TB...
When taxes and spending are both reduced the cost of doing business is reduced and the prices of goods and services decrease. (The result of competition in markets!)

So, ultimately, we all benefit from lower government spending and taxation.

Agreed -- in theory. With a record deficit, a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, crumbling infrastructure, underfunded programs like Social Security & Medicare, education issues, etc. -- what do you propose? More record deficit? Someone has to clean up this mess, and it's going to cost us as a society. Maybe not today, but it will eventually.

But, to answer your question, if you do some serious research into the issue, you will find that our economy DOES NOT usually enjoy rapid growth when democrats are in power and slow growth when republicans are in power. Just the opposite.

And just where does your data come from? According to mine, Democrats enjoy an average of 4.4% GDP growth while Republicans have had 2.6%. Even accounting for modern times only, starting with Truman, the Dems hold an advantage with 4.5%.

Employment follows the same pattern. Under Democrats, it has an average growth of 3% per year, while under Republicans the growth is only 1.3%.

Inequality in income, as measured by the Gini index, grows more unequal during Republican years, and is more equal during Democratic administrations.

Source

We currently have a national debt in excess of $9 Trillion dollars...the result of excess spending over tax revenues by Congress (where all appropriations originate) and the democrats have controlled Congress for about 90% of the last 50 years.

So, the national debt, which has increased over 54% under Bush and the Republican controlled congress(for 6 of 8 years) is somehow the fault of a previous Democratic controlled congress? Bush is overspending and under producing. Currently, ~40% of our national debt is held by foreign entities. Every year the national debt costs American taxpayers $250 billion in interest alone. Now, I'm all for cutting government spending and exercising fiscal responsibility. But decreasing our debt cannot currently be done while cutting taxes.

Now, the national debt wouldn't be so much of a problem if we weren't running so large of a trade deficit alongside.

To me, its not so much that he changes his mind. Its how quickly he changes it. The situation has not changed that much for this change to come out now. slightly higher unemployment does not call for a change to your general plan.

McCain does it too. Its just scary how the mind changes when the situation doesn't.

One party rule is never good. Both sides need the balance and not total power.

Republicans equal War is Big Business. End of story.
Want change? Change your thinking.
Want the draft reinstated? Vote Republican.
Want some peace and prosperity for a change, vote Democratic.

carol,

that's a bit misleading. the only democratic president in modern history who truly advocated "peace" (ultimately to the demise of the stability between iraq/iran which directly affected us) was Jimmy Carter. Not Clinton, Kennedy, not LBJ.

You must be pretty young, Carolg...
Let's see, we had a Democrat President named Lyndon Baines Johnson who conducted a war in Viet Nam that killed 500,000 young Americans, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, set the stage for massive inflation in the 1970s, and LOST!
We have George W. Bush who is fighting a war that has only cost us 4,000 casualties that we are winning!
End of story.

It is 2008.

Today, in 2008 :

Republicans equal War is Big Business. End of story.
Want change? Change your thinking.
Want the draft reinstated? Vote Republican.
Want some peace and prosperity for a change, vote Democratic.

thank you carolg

Dave-471712

you forgot to check over you math...

over $12,000,000,000 a month x 12 months a year x 100 years. = a lot!

1 in 4 ? suffering for mental illness of one fore or another .... ummmm that does sound like there's a 25% chance mccain is a nut !

To Scott-377513

"Dave its more like 4157 deaths to date, too bad you were not one of them."

Thanks Scott - for broadcasting to the world what an insightful, intelligent conversationalist you are!

We have George W. Bush who is fighting a war that has only cost us 4,000 casualties that we are winning!

Seriously dude what are we winning? How can they claim "we are winning the war" and "the surge is working" when we shouldn't be there in the first place?

And come on......"only cost us 4000 casualties"

"Has only cost us 4,000", Dave-471712 you typed that. Forgive me it seemed that you were talking about oh I don't know baseball cards, MP3s, Dollars, no you jack off you're talking about people as if the were pawns in a chess game you were playing. That horrible, Do you know what and IED does to the body. I have not kept track of open and closed casket ceremonies, but I'm sure closed is up there. Can you imagine thats dieing by the mean of an IED, Usually a plastic type explosive, nails, glass, ball bearing all packed in to the device to get as much collateral damage. Ok so then they hit the Improvised explosive device, hits a truck filled with soldiers, the oldest is oh 25. youngest is 18, so there is the 18 year old with lower half of his body blow across the street. He was the driver, the passenger in the 5 ton got sprayed with the fragments, and the 25 year old lost his right arm below the elbow, @!$%# he was the medic!!!!! What ever move some more pawns forward.
Dave you are a ghoul or just a dick. Its that kinda thinking that give McCshame a hard on for war, only 4000. Did McCain ever see ground combat or did he just crash 5 jets. 1 jet to many it would seem

Reported as inflammatory. Please follow the CoH. You can disagree with someone without wishing he were dead, or calling him a ghoul or a dick.

Thanks, Katrix...
Sorry to be the cause of you and others having to read that dribble.

I'm sorry for the dribble, the press has won the right to film the flag covered coffins as they return from Iraq and Afghanistan, so you should be able to keep a better death count now.

McGovern, correct me if I'm wrong, but the way i interpret your statement, you seem to see cutting taxes as a "silver bullet" so to speak. Economy in the dumps? Cut taxes! Cut them farther!

There is so much more to economic prosperity than simply adjusting tax rates. Even within the sole realm of tax policy, if you were to cut taxes, it wouldn't do a damn thing if the population didn't handle its (hypothetically slightly larger) after tax income properly. And largely, we don't. Both the population, and the government seem to think that operating on credit is financially responsible.

It also depends on how the rest of the government bureaucracy adjusts to the rate changes. Obviously lowering taxes has to be augmented with lowering of government spending, but the devil is in the details.

I'm sorry but i don't buy it for a second that, as the supply-siders always say, lowering taxes is going to save the world, plant a bunch of trees, and give everyone a puppy. The correct decision for this country depends on so many factors that all need to be properly weighed with respect to the "situation on the ground" (hehe).

If it was as easy as cutting taxes, wouldn't you think we would have seen this concept exploited to the fullest by now?

McGovern, correct me if I'm wrong, but the way i interpret your statement, you seem to see cutting taxes as a "silver bullet" so to speak. Economy in the dumps? Cut taxes! Cut them farther!

Obama's proposed "trickle up" economics wont work. As it ignors certain facts with middle America.

For example: Obama proposes a 1000.00 energy tax rebate payed by a "windfall profits tax" on big oil. SOUNDS GREAT lets tax "Big Oil!

Now if you are and energy company do you think you wil just say OK, tax me more , I am happy to make less. No you have two choices raise prices to maintain the same profit level OR you cut dividends.

Now most Middle Americans have some kind of pension plan, a 401K, IRA or regular pension plan. Look at where those investments are in those "funds" on your report. They have energy stock. Higher taxes on income means that they pay less dividends.

What Obama is basically doing is taking money that would have gone into your retirement account and is giving it to you to spend now. 20 years from now you wont remember what you spend that 1000.00 on but you will have less in your retirement when you really need it.

He also ignors the fact that the very industry "Big Oil" that he wants to tax, also owns huge interests in solar, clean coal and wind technology as well as invest most in alternative energy research.

America cant save! We have the lowest level of savings in history, we have the highest credit card debt. People used their homes like ATM's.

Obama's energy credit is a gimmick and his bigger govenment with lots of entitlement programs mean that the deficit gets bigger and bigger.

But we need to make the wealthy PAY MORE! Thats Obama's brand of economic socialism.

So Obama wants to basically tax you boss. You boss pays your paycheck. When your Boss has less money in his pocket do you REALLY think he is going to give you a raise? Or will he cut back on things like contributions to pension plans, health care and salary increases, or try to get by with LESS EMPLOYEES?

Obama obviously slept though his economics 101 class.

He is counting on that you did too!

Perhaps a better "real" reform would be to tax wealth, instead of income. The very "wealthiest" among us often report very little income.

Even better might be to adopt the Fair Tax on consumption and eliminate all income taxes and hidden taxes!

Assuming you mean the Fair Tax as proposed in the Fair Tax Act, I could get behind it with some modifications.

For instance, to be a fair burden (as opposed to equal in absolute dollar terms), the tax rate should be progressive. So the rate ona $1 mil home is say 45%, v. 23% for 100,000 home.

Also, certain goods and services should be taxed to include their full social costs. This extra tax could be rolled into a corporate tax structure instead. (I assume the Fair Tax applies only to individual citizens and families).

For example, it costs more to provide electric service to suburban residents than to urban, largely because of increased transmission inefficiencies. Those costs are born by every electric user, however, which is not fair to my sensibilities. The costs, by the way, are not just $/kwHr but also include less easily quantified costs: decrease in greenspace, longer waits to repair, diversion of safety resources, etc.

"For instance, to be a fair burden (as opposed to equal in absolute dollar terms), the tax rate should be progressive. So the rate on a $1 mil home is say 45%, v. 23% for 100,000 home."

But then we would be right back where we are now, wouldn't we?

"Also, certain goods and services should be taxed to include their full social costs."

Social costs are extremely difficult (if not impossible) to determine and are mostly the subjective opinion of whoever is doing the estimating! Social benefit is the same concept. How do you calculate the dollar value of the social benefit you receive from the beautiful landscaping your neighbors have done. They did all the work but you get the benefit of looking at it instead of a yard full of weeds. What is that worth?

Providing the infrastructure to make electricity available can be charged directly to the end user. The further you live from town the more it costs. Why should your downtown neighbor be forced to pay to get utilities to your rural home? I think your last paragraph supports my argument with respect to greenspace, etc..

True--social costs and benefits are hard to quantify. But we quantify the hard-to-quantify all the time. For example insurance companies put definite dollar values on loss of limb, loss of kidney function, etc. "Because it's hard" seems a lousy reason not to act.

By the way, a progressive tax on transactions is NOT our current progressive tax on income. They do share a similar normative basis, however: individuals owe something to their community based on the advantages afforded by their community.

It takes a village, huh?

I'm sorry, I can't see the relevance of a book about child-rearing.

I'm just saying that it only seems fair that those who benefit the most from a community should contribute the most back.

I'm sorry, I can't see the relevance of a book about child-rearing.

I don't think Hillary coined the term.

I'm just saying that it only seems fair that those who benefit the most from a community should contribute the most back.

Here's some problems I have with this:

One, what if we then benefit from that fortunate person? If that person's wealth creates jobs, either directly or indirectly? If that person's stature increases value around him? If we rely on those people's productivity? Do we (the government) then start paying them back?

What f that person just stopped earning and spending exorbitantly all together or cut back progressively? Why make it less appealing to try and build wealth? Isn't it better overall to have more people trying to buy that million dollar home that you want to tax out of reach of more and more of those people?

Finally, aren't they - as Dave laid out - already contributing the most back? Not even just through taxation, but a person buying a million dollar home doesn't just snap his fingers and make it appear. Discouraging million dollar homes from being purchased means less work for material producers, sales people, laborers, contractors, designers, architects ect. But that's fine so long as in the more limited examples of people buying million dollar homes, at least the government might cash in now and then.

No where in this discussion am I seeing the antidote for this taxation disease: reign in spending. Wouldn't that be preferable to trying to concoct clever ways to further impede success and punish wealth? Heck, maybe a few more people might get that million dollar home even.

LOL! John Stewart is hilarious. He reports the news better than the news networks.

I'd love to see the MSM challenge one of those BS'ers on Prime Time. I mean the GOP is the epitome of double standards and hypocrisy -- and this clip just helps to emphasizes that point very clearly.

Citizens for Tax Justice is a nonpartisan, nonprofit research and advocacy organization dedicated to fair taxation at the federal, state, and local levels.

Right FredC...anyone can see from the titles of these reports that CTJ is an unbiased source!

Recent Reports

Tax Justice Digest: McCain Campaign Continues to Mislead on Obama's Tax Plan -- and McCain's Chief Economic Adviser Admits Their Commercials Are Wrong 9/5/08

Tax Justice Digest: Right-Wing Announces It Opposes Tax Cuts... for the Poor and Middle-Class 8/22/08

Right-Wing Spin Machine Uses Misleading Figures to Argue that the Tax Code Is More Progressive Under Bush 7/31/08

New Math: McCain Surrogate Claims that 23 Million Small Business Owners Are Among the Nation's Richest 1.4 Million Taxpayers! 7/18/08

Only 1% of Taxpayers Would Be Affected By Obama's Proposal to Increase the Social Security Payroll Tax for the Rich 7/07/08

House GOP Tax and Entitlement Plan Would Raise Taxes on Four Fifths of Americans While Slashing Taxes on the Wealthy 7/07/08

There has been nothing but slogans from McCain and certainly no straight talk. All he's done is show that's he's an agent of the last eight years of poor policy and decision making. The whole RNC was nothing more then an outline of GOP failures. It sounds like they want to 'change' all of the things they've screwed up. How are they going to effect change when they are the problem?

straight talk ? You mean the Double Talk express? More of his supporters willful ignorance on his lies and flips.

the Reformed Maverick
McCain 08

Thats exactly what he just said. He plans to hold off his socialism plans until our capitalistic programs are strong enough to take the hit. Nice.

YEP. Obama now admits that higher taxes are bad for the economy. He just wants to wait to raise taxes now until the economy can handle the hit. This just confirms that the GOP claim of "tax and spend Democrats" is not a hollow mantra - it is exactly the DEMs and Obama in reality.

It is a positive that he is beginning to acknowledge how our economy works.

Now if he will just promise to govern with his newly found wisdom. The longer he campaigns, the smarter he gets. Maybe he needs a few more years of campaigning.

Funny, if lower taxes are good in the short run, why wouldn't they be good in the long run?

I am glad to see Obama say:

1. The surge worked
2. Offshore drilling should be on the table
3. Rescinding the Bust tax cuts may have to wait

I respect his honestly. Why couldn't he start on the right side of the issue?

He may be a poll watcher. He changed his mind on offshore drilling when 69% of Americans wanted it.

If higher taxes hurt the economy, why would you raise taxes? Ever?

because if the extremely wealthy are the only ones currently holding the economy up then it makes sense not to tax them now. Wait until the middle class gets their tax cut and can keep the economy going THEN tax the rich.

No one is saying Obama is stupid...just ignorant...especially about economics. He is a smart enough politician to avoid promising not to raise taxes and then do it! He understands why G.H.W. Bush was not reelected.

Re: #22.2
Part of the problem is that the so called rich are not using their wealth, they just keep stockpiling it. If they actually used enough of it on every day item purchases the economy could improve. Problem is they aren't.

So we're forced to take some of that money and put it back into the system through taxing.

The lower and middle class don't have wealth. That's excess money they don't need for day to day living.

Excellent observation.

No one is saying Obama is stupid...just ignorant...especially about economics.

I believe he is extremely capable of understanding the complexities of the economy along with everything else needed to hold the top office. Too bad neither side will talk about their cabinet selections since that is who they will rely on while in office.

"Part of the problem is that the so called rich are not using their wealth, they just keep stockpiling it."

Question: Where are the rich "stockpiling" their wealth? In mattresses?
Answer: They invest it in the stocks of companies, or finance new ventures with it that lead to the creation of new capital and jobs...or...they place it in CDs or savings accounts from which the lenders finance new home, automobile, boat, tractors, machinery, etc. purchases which creates jobs producing all of those goods and services. All of those jobs created by this "stockpiling" of wealth generates incomes with which people, including the rich, purchase "every day items".

The above is a process that creates new wealth. It makes the economic pie bigger for all of us. When government, through taxes "takes" some of that money and "puts it back in the system" no new wealth is created, just transferred, worse, the new wealth that would have been created with that money is foregone, ultimately making us poorer.

Not to be condescending, but you don't have a very good understanding of how an economy works. I would recommend reading a short book entitled Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt. It can be purchased at Amazon.com or read for free at the web site jim.com

Re: #22.7
Dave, I understand. I am one of those so called rich. I have wealth and a personal finance planner, a CPA and a lawyer. I live from my investments. I am lucky and appreciate what I have. I simply identify with those with less. That's what being a Democrat is all about - I didn't forget the people around me on the way up. My friends, family and neighbors benefit from my assistance. I've paid their rent, their mortgages and helped them to implement workable budgets.

Deny reality and tell me to go read a book from a libertarian economic journalist. Yes, read his background and his social focus. Market based approaches are broken, that's the reality of today. Too many years hands off letting corporations gouge their customers while the CEO, CFO, COO, CIO all take home multi-million dollar bonuses.

Sticking money in the stock market, investing in companies and expecting them to do what's right for America hasn't been working. There simply aren't enough Gates or Buffets leading these corporations being socially accountable. Is Walmart your idea of socially accountable? How about Exxon? Enron? The slew of corrupt Telcos... the list is long and tiring to read.

When government, through taxes "takes" some of that money and "puts it back in the system" no new wealth is created

I'd like to point out that this statement is false, and in some really definite ways.

For instance, most of the most useful medicines we have today exist because of government funded (i.e. wealth transferred from individuals) scientific research.

Oh, and then there's that internet thing.

And NASA (despite its problems). And SBA. And schools. And roads. And...

"Dave, I understand. I am one of those so called rich. I have wealth and a personal finance planner, a CPA and a lawyer. I live from my investments. I am lucky and appreciate what I have. I simply identify with those with less."

Great! Having compassion and a generous spirit is a wonderful thing.

"Deny reality and tell me to go read a book from a libertarian economic journalist. Yes, read his background and his social focus."

Well, I'm not sure what reality you think I am denying. I am perplexed that you believe that reading the background and the social focus, whatever you mean by that, of a book, any book, gives you enough information to comment on the book. Perhaps you are one of those rare people who CAN judge a book by its cover.

If you believe market-based solutions are broken and government is the answer you need to go back and read what is BETWEEN the covers of that book. Then come back here and make your best argument.

"Sticking money in the stock market, investing in companies and expecting them to do what's right for America hasn't been working."

It sure sounds like they have been doing right by you! You claim to be rich, with CPAs and lawyers and financial advisors. Rich enough to live off your investments. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to call the very business environment that has made you rich a bunch of gougers, corrupt, and having evil intentions? Why do you invest in these companies? Don't you consider your income blood money? And what is your opinion of your advisors who have helped make you rich? Bloodsuckers? Leeches? You should fire them! :>)

Sorry ericfive, I should have been more specific. I didn't say and I didn't mean to imply that every dollar spent by government is non-productive or not wealth-creating.
However, 70% of the Federal budget is mandatory spending for entitlement programs, which ARE a redistribution of, not creator of, wealth.

I assume you mean 70% of the non-military budget, which is about half the total budget.

Pacific - loved your comment(22.10) and agree 100%.

Dave - don't worry about all the social programs. All the people that recieve money from social programs spend every penny they get. 100% of their money goes right back to the economy. It keeps the world turning. The rich may invest in the market, unfortunately that money just goes back and forth from one rich guy to the next. At the end of the day the rich get all the money from the poor and the rich.

The errosion of the middle class is not good for anyone, rich or poor.

Not over it:

I don't think you understand the market.

Not that I have any expertise on the subject, but would you care to explain why, wmolaw?

"You're wrong," by itself isn't a compelling argument without at least the bare minimum of an explanation.

Arad:

Depends on which point you wish explained.

The market is no longer "the Rich." That may have been true 60 or so years ago, but it is no longer true.

Almost all Americans, or certainly a great number of them, are "in the market" now through 401K, Sars, Seps, and a myriad of other savings and investment vehicles which many people may not realize are even tied to the "market".

If you have a "money market" account at a bank, you are "in the market."

So, I would suspect that most of us are "in the market" and to assert it is just "money [that] just goes back and forth from one rich guy to the next. At the end of the day the rich get all the money from the poor and the rich." is naive at best and completely incorrect.

The folks at Enron and other companies that had their pension monies in their stocks sure as hell learned this lesson from floor sweepers all the way up.

By the way, I merely said he did not understand the market.

and your point is?.......

There are a lot of very good reasons to enlist in the military during war-time or peace. I enlisted in 1994. The Gulf War was over, but it was an American thing to do. My husband enlisted in 1992. He did 2 tours in Saudi Arabia (granted to fighting was over, but the terrorism risk was incredibly high, a la Kobar towers). We were both proud to serve. My husband paid for his college education with his G.I. Bill. My father is a 24 year veteran. My brother is currently active duty and was in Iraq last year. He has been in for 17 years. Enlisting in the military or serving as an officer after college is incredibly honorable. Serving a cause greater than yourself and putting your country first is the ultimate act of patriotism. It is the perpetuation of the freedoms most Americans take for granted and would never pick up a weapon to defend.

Yes I agree with you, but BKER1492 was somehow insinuating that NOT enlisting is somehow wrong.

Yes I agree with you, but BKER1492 was somehow insinuating that NOT enlisting is somehow wrong.

Mike, I think he was insinuating that Obama's reasoning was wrong, not that he didn't sign-up.

umm..I'm not sure about that but I'll give BKER1492 the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you that is very kind of you. This is the type of discourse each side needs more of.

Indeed.

This little string here is a rarity these days. Two sides stating their opinions without getting offensive? UnPossible!

I just wish it happened more often. : /