Log In | Register
91 Comments
PrintImages 
(showing 1 of 3 photos)
(showing 1 of 3 photos)advertisement
Job No. 1 for the next president? In the minds of an overwhelming number of Americans, it's fixing what ails the sick economy. What the voters will have to sort out are very different approaches offered by Barack Obama and John McCain.
Both of their fix-up plans rely heavily on tax cuts, but in sharply different ways that speak to the historic differences between Democrats and Republicans.
McCain, borrowing a page from Ronald Reagan and President Bush, would keep tax rates low for higher-income taxpayers and slash rates for corporations, arguing that this is the way to jump-start a lethargic economy and create more jobs.
Obama, focusing on a theme of many past Democratic campaigns, seeks to target his help to the squeezed middle class and address the growing income inequality between rich and poor. He would retain all of the Bush tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year, but would do away with Bush's cuts for people making more than that.
The money raised from tax increases on the wealthy would be redirected by Obama to tax relief for lower-income Americans.
Unlike a lot of campaign debates where the promises of neither side get enacted into law, this war of words will make a difference because all of Bush's tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010.
Since neither party wants to go back to the tax rates in effect before 2001, whoever wins will have to work with Congress to pass legislation shaping how the tax code will look beyond 2010. At stake will be billions of dollars.
Under Obama, the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers, those making roughly $600,000 or more, would see their taxes go up on average by $93,709 in 2009, according to an analysis done by the Tax Policy Center, because Obama would begin implementing his tax changes even before the scheduled expiration of the Bush cuts.
Under McCain, those same taxpayers would see an average reduction of $48,860, reflecting in part additional cuts he is proposing.
By contrast, the bottom 20 percent of taxpayers, those with taxable income of roughly $19,000 per year or less, would see their taxes cut by an average of $567 under Obama's program and $21 under McCain's plan, the tax center estimates.
For the 20 percent of taxpayers right in the middle of the income scale, making roughly between $37,600 and $66,400, the tax break would be $1,118 under the Obama plan and $325 under the McCain plan in 2009, according to the analysis done by the tax center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, two Washington think tanks.
In addition to tax cuts, both presidential candidates are out promising voters a lot of programs in the areas of health care, energy and education.
But the outlook for the federal budget is much darker now than in 2000. In that year, candidate Bush traveled the country promoting across-the-board tax cuts as a way to fix what ailed America in the wake of a sudden slowdown in growth and a bursting of the bubble in high-tech stocks.
With the Congressional Budget Office and others forecasting record-breaking surpluses totaling $5.6 trillion over the decade, it seemed like a good idea to a lot of Washington policymakers to return a part of those surpluses in the form of a $1.35 trillion tax cut passed in 2001 and a follow-up measure in 2003.
The problem was that the surplus forecast turned out to be wildly inaccurate because of an unforeseen recession that began in 2001 just as Bush was taking office and the soaring costs of fighting a global war on terror that began in the wake of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
The federal books were in the black in 2001 — for the fourth consecutive year — but since then, the U.S. has returned to running huge deficits, including the largest in history in dollar terms, a $413 billion imbalance in 2004.
Now, with the government pumping out $106.7 billion to Americans in stimulus payments to keep all the problems in housing and the credit markets from pushing the country into a deep recession, the deficits are surging again.
The CBO predicts a $400 billion imbalance this year, and the administration is forecasting that the deficit for the next budget year that begins Oct. 1 will hit an all-time high of $482 billion.
That forecast doesn't include the cost of the government takeover announced by the administration on Sunday of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That effort, which has the potential of adding tens of billions of dollars to the deficits in the short run, won the qualified backing of both Obama and McCain.
The CBO's current forecast for the next decade doesn't look that bad on paper, projecting the budget will go into the black in 2012, giving the country a small surplus of $270 billion over the next 10 years.
However, that forecast comes with a warning label. The CBO has to make its estimates based on current law, which has the Bush tax cuts expiring after 2010 and makes no provisions for further outlays to keep the Alternative Minimum Tax on the wealthy from hitting millions of middle-income taxpayers, a huge expense every year.
The economic plans that McCain and Obama have put forward do include the billions needed to deal with the AMT plus extending the Bush tax cuts. McCain would extend all of them except the total elimination of the estate tax, while Obama would extend only the cuts for individual taxpayers making less than $200,000 annually or couples making less than $250,000.
With those big-ticket tax cuts plus the impact of other changes in the tax code included, McCain's plans would slash revenues by $4.2 trillion over the next decade while Obama's reduction would be a slightly smaller $2.9 trillion. Both would transform the CBO's small surplus over the 10-year period into big deficits, according to the tax center.
The two campaigns argue that it is not fair to hold them to the unrealistic CBO baseline. Rather, the campaigns like to compare their proposals to a current policy baseline which assumes the Bush tax cuts are extended and the AMT is patched every year. Under that baseline, according to the tax center, McCain's plan would cut taxes by $596 billion over the next decade; Obama's would increase taxes by $627 billion during the same period, reflecting the fact that Obama is raising tax rates on the wealthy and boosting the taxes they pay on dividends and capital-gains earnings. Obama is also not embracing McCain's proposal to cut the top rate on corporate taxes.
Regardless of the baseline used, the government's debt would go up sharply — by $3.5 trillion under the Obama plan and by $5 trillion over the next decade under McCain's plan, the tax center estimates.
While both campaigns argue they are not getting enough credit for their plans to cut spending, history shows that campaigns always pledge to pay for their tax cuts but seldom achieve that goal because spending cuts prove much more difficult to get through Congress.
And how about the overall goals — McCain's effort to give the country a boost by cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations and Obama's efforts to narrow income inequality?
Economists say there are things to like in both programs. They generally favor reductions in top rates as a way to spur new investment and job creation, so on that point McCain's program gets good marks. However, there are worries that the higher deficits that are expected because of the tax cuts could drive up interest rates, raising the cost of money for businesses and result in less investment, not more.
For Obama, the concern is that all of his new and expanded tax credits, such as his "Making Work Pay" refundable credit which would provide low-income workers with a maximum of $500 per individual and $1,000 per family, will further complicate an already complex tax system and won't make a very big dent in the problems of income inequality.
And neither candidate is talking very much about tackling what all experts see as the biggest budgetary challenge facing the next president — the explosion in the government's big benefit programs for Social Security and Medicare as the baby boomers retire.
Obama has proposed levying a 2 percent to 4 percent tax on payroll earnings above $250,000 a decade from now to deal with Social Security, but experts say that would fix only a small part of the problem with the pension program. And neither campaign has put forward any proposals that experts say would make a meaningful dent in fixing Medicare, the far bigger entitlement problem because of soaring health care costs.
Some experts see tax increases, not cuts, in the country's future regardless of who wins the presidency.
"We are starting out with very big deficits, and the demographics are turning more unfavorable with all the baby boomer retirements," said Nigel Gault, senior economist at Global Insight, a Lexington, Mass., forecasting firm. "The deeper you get into the next presidency, the more likelihood that taxes will have to be raised."
___
AP Business Writers Ellen Simon in New York and Christopher Rugaber in Washington contributed to this report.
© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
25 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Martin Crutsinger's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: ObamaExpress, Republicans for Obama, Stating the Obvious, The Bigger 2008 Election , US News and Views
- Regions: United States
 | Obama: Recession could delay rescinding tax cuts | Associated Press | Sun Sep 7 | 359 |
 | Obama flip flops on his biggest issue, the economy. | TIME | Mon Sep 8 | 2 |
 | Obama, McCain battle over the economy | Associated Press | Thu Sep 4 | 127 |
| Obama might not raise taxes on rich | Chicago Sun-Times | Mon Sep 8 | 8 |
| Today on the presidential campaign trail | Associated Press | Wed Sep 3 | 4 |
- Public Discussion (91)
- ObamaExpress
- Republicans for Obama
- Stating the Obvious
- The Bigger 2008 Election
- US News and Views
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
51
18
2.3
{"commentId":2814398,"authorDomain":"kelvins273"}
It's nice to see some actual numbers on the tax plans for once. It's also interesting that the liberal Democrat's plan seems more fiscally responsible....
{"commentId":2814398,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"kelvins273"}
- 11 votes
#1 - Mon Sep 8, 2008 4:58 AM EDT{"commentId":2814530,"authorDomain":"GreyWolf"}
"It's also interesting that the liberal Democrat's plan seems more fiscally responsible.... "
True.
"Regardless of the baseline used, the government's debt would go up sharply — by $3.5 trillion under the Obama plan and by $5 trillion over the next decade under McCain's plan, the tax center estimates."
McCain proposes $1.5trillion more debt than Obama.
"...there are worries that the higher deficits that are expected because of the tax cuts could drive up interest rates, raising the cost of money for businesses and result in less investment, not more."
70% of the US economy is driven by the consumer. Leaving more money in the pockets of the working class, which is more likely to be spent, will boost the economy -- and create jobs. The wealthy are more likely to save, not spend, often sheltering or investing their funds overseas. Tax cuts for the wealthy may possibly only create more jobs in China or India...
{"commentId":2814530,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"GreyWolf"}
- 10 votes
{"commentId":2817409,"authorDomain":"jwbuchan"}
Leaving more money in the pockets of the working class, which is more likely to be spent, will boost the economy -- and create jobs. The wealthy are more likely to save, not spend, often sheltering or investing their funds overseas. Tax cuts for the wealthy may possibly only create more jobs in China or India...
That may be true, but you could also logically argue that leaving money in the pockets of wealthy entrepeneurs will get money invested in domestic businesses, creating jobs for the middle class and that the average american will only spend their money on consumer goods, most of which are produced overseas.
I don't know which is true, and I know there are a lot of people who hate "trickle down" economics, but the theory does exist.
Personally, I think we have to go to tarrifs if we expect to fix the deficit and get out of debt.
{"commentId":2817409,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"jwbuchan"}
{"commentId":2817662,"authorDomain":"lunartick"}
Hasn't the right been trying to "prove" that trickle-down economics work every chance they get for the past 30 years? And it seems to me that it just about always results in more debt and increased wealth for the upper echelon, with little to none of that "trickling down" as they claim it will. Maybe we just need to give them another 10, 20, or 50 years....
{"commentId":2817662,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"lunartick"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":2818753,"authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
Hasn't the right been trying to "prove" that trickle-down economics work every chance they get for the past 30 years?
Yes and the problem with the theory is that it's 100% exactly backwards. When you leave more money in the pockets of the very rich they invest it alright, into more mansions, more yachts and more international companies that do not benefit Americans in any manner. Also the big lie about the trickle down theory is that the people who are pushing it know that it does work, but not the way they claim it does. The tickle down theory is and always has been a scam to move more money into the hands of the already rich with the sole purpose of making them even richer and more powerful. It was never intended to help most Americans. It's one huge hoax, a giant grand theft and the American people are the ones who've been robbed by it.
{"commentId":2818753,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":2818858,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
Please show me where policies of a different approach yielded better results. A well considered flat tax should be the answer. Democrats tax then spend and you still pay the bill. At least republicans are taking less of your money. Clinton too taxed and then took benefits away, you weren't taxed any less, you were taxed more. Government should be lean, taxes should be lower, entitlements reduces, policy and program rules enforced and politicians should spend less on their campaigns. It is perverted the amount of money that has gone into the campaigns.
{"commentId":2818858,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
{"commentId":2819344,"authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
The New Deal. FDR proved beyond any doubt that you grow the American economy from the bottom up, not the top down.
{"commentId":2819344,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":2819680,"authorDomain":"faruk"}
Please show me where policies of a different approach yielded better results
So if you want to go by the past 60 years, voting Democrat is most likely — according to both history and Obama's plan — to yield better results.
{"commentId":2819680,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"faruk"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":2819738,"authorDomain":"jwbuchan"}
The New Deal. FDR proved beyond any doubt that you grow the American economy from the bottom up, not the top down.
Experts do not agree that The New Deal helped lead the US out of the Great Depression. Historians tend to believe that it did, but economists are more divided.
But let's be honest, the reason that people remember the New Deal so fondly is that it started with the repeal of prohibition!
{"commentId":2819738,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"jwbuchan"}
{"commentId":2819818,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
Then please explain to me why the democrats take the position that they do with unions for example when that has been one of the largest issues facing manufacturing in this country?
Also explain why a democratic held congress would not level the playing field for American companies vs. those off shore?
Explain why then Obama would rewrite NAFTA?
Explain to me why democrats won't vote for a competitive school system that helps all of our children?
You can't! Your a hack! Your The Angry Leftist!
{"commentId":2819818,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
{"commentId":2823037,"authorDomain":"MALife"}
The rich and wealthy have ways of getting around taxes anyhow. I've built multimillion dollar mansions for the wealthy. They would put almost every cent they own into building these houses and furnishing them with outrageous items because it's what they call a "tax shelter". As long as they spend and invest this money, it cannot be taxed. I also used to work for a small business. The owner of that company had a habit of putting everything he owned onto the company. All his cars (all 15 of them, including 2 hummers) were "company vehicles. Everything for his house and his kid's houses were put onto the company account so he could write it all off. They find all the loop holes to get out of paying taxes, cutting the taxes for them really won't matter much. The IRS needs to crack down on these loop holes.
{"commentId":2823037,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"MALife"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2823520,"authorDomain":"jwbuchan"}
I also used to work for a small business. The owner of that company had a habit of putting everything he owned onto the company. All his cars (all 15 of them, including 2 hummers) were "company vehicles. Everything for his house and his kid's houses were put onto the company account so he could write it all off.
That's not a "loophole", that's illegal, and there are big pentalties if he gets caught.
{"commentId":2823520,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"jwbuchan"}
{"commentId":2823804,"authorDomain":"MALife"}
Yeah, I know, but he also has the town that he runs his business in his pocket. It's tax evasion but as long as he never gets caught he'll keep doing it.
{"commentId":2823804,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"MALife"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2824026,"authorDomain":"jwbuchan"}
Exactly, and people from all economic classes engage in illegal tax evasion. If we think that tax evasion is the reason that the wealthy aren't paying enough taxes, we need to step up enforcement, not raise taxes on the honest ones.
{"commentId":2824026,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"jwbuchan"}
{"commentId":2824259,"authorDomain":"MALife"}
That is what I'm implying. It only gets worse though when you have more money. I know "little business" owners do it as well, but not to the extreme that others will it. As I stated, the IRS needs to crack down on this, on everyone.
{"commentId":2824259,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"MALife"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2825069,"authorDomain":"hmm"}
That may be true, but you could also logically argue that leaving money in the pockets of wealthy entrepeneurs will get money invested in domestic businesses, creating jobs for the middle class and that the average american will only spend their money on consumer goods, most of which are produced overseas.
Well then --the wealthiest Americans got their tax cut under the Bush administration..Where are all those jobs that are supposed to have been created by giving the wealthy more tax breaks? Why is the economy so bad? Shouldn't we be riding that wave of economic prosperity about now?
Trickle down economics doesn't work. We've tried it.
You'll notice though that Repubs are now taking credit for voting the economic stimulus package into law and say that's what's improved the economy( and I agree, for the short term ), over the past 3 months. So apparently even the repubs have admitted that demand side economics works.
Explain to me how repubs can pat themselves on the back for voting to stimulate the economy from the bottom up and say it works, and then come back and say "that leaving money in the pockets of wealthy entrepeneurs will get money invested in domestic businesses, creating jobs for the middle class"
{"commentId":2825069,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"hmm"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2829650,"authorDomain":"wildbutterflies13"}
Chuck1968
I agree demand side economics works. Just ask all the foreign cartels of drug dealers. We haven't won that WAR either.
{"commentId":2829650,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"wildbutterflies13"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2814528,"authorDomain":"s-bural"}
The best way to judge how the Dems and the GOP will lead us is by looking at how they have led us in the past. Traditionally, the middle class fare better under the dems. This year, despite the promise of change, Mccain's economic policies are very similar to Bush's. How have your finances fared the past 8 years, how have those of most of your friends and family?
{"commentId":2814528,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"s-bural"}
- 13 votes
#2 - Mon Sep 8, 2008 6:12 AM EDT{"commentId":2817130,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
That is patently false! Have you any facts to substantiate your claim?
{"commentId":2817130,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2818245,"authorDomain":"torabu"}
Hypothetically, wouldn't this very article be fact to substantiate sherry's claim that the McCain economic policies are very similar to Bush's? I say hypothetically because it could also prove the opposite; depends exactly what Bush's policies have been, but from what I recall they seem to be on the same page -- trickle down economics.
{"commentId":2818245,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"torabu"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2819098,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
You are trying to over simplify a very complex process.
- To paint these individuals McCain as Bush and likewise Obama as Clinton is not only unfair it is unwise.
- If their statements regarding their positions are ideological and that is in lock step with party platform and their voting record substantiates it then it is possible.
Would you want to vote for a candidate who always votes with his party or votes the way he feels about the issues? Likewise, do you as a democrat or a republican always vote for that party's candidate even if you feel they are unfit?
Sometimes our choices are the lesser of the evils we have as options. Not voting doesn't help. In this case I would honestly rather vote for the candidate who I feel will keep this nation secure because we do live in uncertain times, the candidate who has demonstrated the ability to work in bipartisan ways, a leader who has a demonstrated record of service to this country and the one that will most likely do the least amount of further damage.
That has to be McCain. I'll admit, he wasn't my first choice, but voting for Obama now, at this point in Obama's career, is not only a good way to express our freedom irresponsibly, but plain dangerous.
{"commentId":2819098,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2819715,"authorDomain":"faruk"}
Dukenukem: it's not "patently false", it is, in fact, true:
{"commentId":2819715,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"faruk"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":2819876,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
Faruk Ates - You are going to use a NY Times article to demonstrate that the middle class has faired better under Democratic presidents? Are you kidding? Please! The Times is as far left as Obama. They support him. Get it!
{"commentId":2819876,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2846204,"authorDomain":"kelvins273"}
Except that the Times article actually supplies numbers to back up their claim. Now, it's possible the numbers are skewed (damn lies and statistics, etc.), but saying "The New York Times is liberal" doesn't automatically invalidate their evidence.
{"commentId":2846204,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"kelvins273"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2814538,"authorDomain":"Rixar13"}
Trickle down Economics is nonsense and Democrats are the more fiscally responsible party and have been through out history. (eg. Bill Clinton)
Republicans are more "Liberal with Red ink -1.9%"
Democrats have meant 1.5% improvement in the budget position. Obama / Biden 2008
I agree with Grey Wolf ^.
{"commentId":2814538,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"Rixar13"}
- 10 votes
#3 - Mon Sep 8, 2008 6:17 AM EDT{"commentId":2814746,"authorDomain":"lpwillham"}
Clinton achieved his fiscal responsibility with a republican congress. He also got welfare reform with eth help of a republican congress. Just a little FACT CHECK.
{"commentId":2814746,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"lpwillham"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":2817234,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
Really! Bill Clinton put through the largest tax increase in history in his first term. What he said he wouldn't do. The middle class paid that and by the way Bubba also gave oil, financial and high tech companies the biggest breaks. Then he decimated the military and underfunded many of their benefits which is what lead to the failures we saw within the first term of the Bush administration on top of 9/11 and we still had growth. Democrats are wonderful. Do you remember the Carter administration? Please! Do your research. It took this long to build it back up. Now if you want to say we can see how a party's candidate will perform by looking at the past, sure, how do you reconcile this?
{"commentId":2817234,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2817365,"authorDomain":"rxrjones1"}
As a worker under the Jimmy Carter Presidency I saw interest rates at the 21% level. We paid out taxes and hard times thought the Regain and Bush administration's to bring the red tape back down. This was twelve years in the works and as a tax payer it was a hard time for all family's to do. What we saw in the Clinton Presidency was the ride at the top of the twelve years of American tax payer sacrifice. All the working people raising a family in this times know of the hard time the American family's went through in those twelve years. We saw the drop in high interest rates the lowering in U.S. debt. With the taxes came a time when jobs were hard to come by. We saw our fellow Americans move form the north to the south to find jobs. Unemployment was higher in the northern states then in the south mostly from the oil fields in the southern states. Then came the crash in the oil fields and the south fell on hard time too. I can say if Obama become president and raises taxes on the top income earners. Be repaired to see them pull their money out of markets that pay higher taxes and just set on it. Small business will have to cut back on employee to make up for the taxes they pay out. If you didn't know most small businesses pay their business tax through personal income tax. The Wind Fall profit tax on oil will shut in oil and gas wells to reduce the tax burden on oil company. Fuel cost will hit the roof and Trucking company's will see sky rocking freight cost. This will lead to high food and utilities cost for all family's. We could see high unemployment like the 1970 again and could see the 1920 all over. While we hear all this raise taxes, cut taxes, why are they not talking about a flat tax? This would be a better deal for everyone and grow our economy. I've lived to see both parties in control of both house and the White House. With full control they both still do not get anything done for the people.
{"commentId":2817365,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"rxrjones1"}
{"commentId":2818914,"authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
Jimmy Carter was handed an economy in ruins that the GOP had screwed up. Then he was faced with major fuel shortages because of OPEC and commintments republicans had made to the Sha of Iran, not him. No republican could have handled that crises better then Carter did and honest republicans know it and thank their phony God one of them wasn't in the White House then. Regan came in and slashed taxes, on the very rich and the nation went into a huge recession that rose the debt to historic levels, while making the rich richer and screw everyone else. Bill Clinton came in and yes, he raised taxes, by restoring taxes back to pre-Reagan levels so the rich started picking up their fair share of the tab again. Along with reaching across the aisle for real welfare reform and sensible energy polices, he slashed the nation debt and balanced the budget, leaving the monkey in charge right now with massive surpluses and an economy humming along fine. The moron Dubya of course reversed that and again instituted disastrous tax cuts for the very rich and screwed it all back up again.
{"commentId":2818914,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2819178,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
The Nixon administration preceeded Carter. Your saying Nixon made the problems you speak of?
{"commentId":2819178,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2819308,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
RD Snyder - No answer on that one? Nixon served one full term and was re-elected for a second. Ford finished out. Carter created his own problems with the Sha, trust me I lived through it. Reagan had to fix everything Carter screwed up and that is why Reagan got another term and then 41 was president. Bubba got lucky that 41 took his eye off the domestic ball and that his opponents in the Dem party screwed up or he would not have gotten in at all. You have no idea how badly Clinton screwed this country with what he did to the military and the intelligence communities. You should thank your lucky stars we had Reagan and not a democrat or we wouldn't even be having this session right now. Thank me very much!
{"commentId":2819308,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2819409,"authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
I lived through it too. I was in the military when Nixon was in power and yes I know Ford preceded cater and yes Nixon created the majority of our economic problems of the time by extending the Vietnam war longer then it had to be and maintaining US unqualified support of the Shah. Carter should not have provided sanctuary for the Shah in the US, but by that time our foreign policy in the middle-east was already breeding the terrorism of today.
{"commentId":2819409,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2819448,"authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
RD Snyder - No answer on that one?
Oh and I suppose you may be more used to "discussing" things in a "chat room", but this isn't one, so an answer not on your timetable does not mean an answer is not coming.
{"commentId":2819448,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":2819965,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
Nixon ended the war and Carter loved the Sha. I know the temptation to rewrite history is a past time liberals love, but facts are facts. Next your going to tell me that it all depends on what my definition of "is" is, right? I think you are smoking old shoes!
{"commentId":2819965,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2836921,"authorDomain":"Rixar13"}
Whoa, let me guess? Misinformation from misinformed people? Logic was not some peoples forte ehhh.......? Vietnam Veteran from Maine with eyes looking to the future health of my country.
{"commentId":2836921,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"Rixar13"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2846273,"authorDomain":"kelvins273"}
Of course, what conservatives tend to forget is that the budget wouldn't have been within shouting distance of balance without the Clinton tax increases. Those hated revenue increases reduced the deficit to the point where you could actually talk about balancing the budget with relatively moderate spending cuts. It really is hard to be fiscally responsible when you don't believe in collecting revenue.
{"commentId":2846273,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"kelvins273"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2814603,"authorDomain":"baby-bear-wv"}
But wait!! When things get really bad, McCain will authorize a stimulus package and send us a check so we can catch up on our bills! Just like Bush!
Sorry...I know sarcasm doesn't lend anything to this discussion, it's just my frustration coming out.
{"commentId":2814603,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"baby-bear-wv"}
- 3 votes
#4 - Mon Sep 8, 2008 6:50 AM EDT{"commentId":2815176,"authorDomain":"tacitus13"}
But wait!! When things get really bad, McCain will authorize a stimulus package and send us a check so we can catch up on our bills! Just like Bush!
Sorry...I know sarcasm doesn't lend anything to this discussion, it's just my frustration coming out.
Actually, Obama is the one proposing a second round of stimulus checks.
{"commentId":2815176,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"tacitus13"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2817261,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
Would you rather get nothing back and have the Dems spend it on pork?
{"commentId":2817261,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2819012,"authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
Tax and spend democrats has been on of the biggest lies foisted on the American people for the past 50 plus years. It's a myth plain and simple. Democrats do believe in fair taxes and programs to help the poor and middle-class, while the GOP cuts taxes for the rich and still spends like drunken sailors, running us into massive debt while they line their pockets. The GOP is quite simply thieves. Their rich leaders know it and they laugh behind the back of every simpleton that votes for them because of social issues, when they know they're screwing them over too. If you're not rich and you still vote republican, they're laughing behind your back too you simple minded idoit. You're being conned, had, hoodwinked.
{"commentId":2819012,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":2819394,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
You call the existing tax rate fair? You must be kidding. Just like your Carter post full of opinion and no facts. Another angry leftist that can't back up a single opinion with any fact! You're a hack!
{"commentId":2819394,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2819478,"authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
Of course it's not fair! The rich got the bulk of the tax cuts under Bush and that's one thing that is going to change under Obama. The economy did much better under the tax rates of the Clinton administration.
{"commentId":2819478,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2820081,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
It is also how we wound up with the mess in the middle east and 911. I guess when you put through the biggest tax increase in modern history and then gut the military you get a surplus. You also get a whole bunch of things you don't want.
{"commentId":2820081,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2890828,"authorDomain":"faruk"}
It is also how we wound up with the mess in the middle east and 911
Actually, that was just the Republican government not listening to warnings from the CIA, and Bush recalling security measurements that Clinton had put in place, "because they were a waste of money".
But good going.
{"commentId":2890828,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"faruk"}
{"commentId":2814802,"authorDomain":"lpwillham"}
Under Obama, the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers, those making roughly $600,000 or more, would see their taxes go up on average by $93,709 in 2009, according to an analysis done by the Tax Policy Center, because Obama would begin implementing his tax changes even before the scheduled expiration of the Bush cuts.
Under McCain, those same taxpayers would see an average reduction of $48,860, reflecting in part additional cuts he is proposing.
Ok lets put those statements in perspective. You work for a small business. The owner of the company, your Boss has 93,709 less in his pocket under Obama. How motivated is he to give you a decent raise, or better healthcare, or increase the amount he contribures to you 401K?
Lets say you are "median income" 50 K a year. If the government told you we are taking another 5000.00 of your income for taxes and you would now have to get by on less, what would you do?
You would have to cut back! Sure you would.
So while Obama Tax cut gimmie, sound good, getting an actual raise in salary is far more likely under McCains plan.
{"commentId":2814802,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"lpwillham"}
- 4 votes
#5 - Mon Sep 8, 2008 7:41 AM EDT{"commentId":2815191,"authorDomain":"lunartick"}
If it's a small business, I'd be more worried that my boss was giving himself a salary of more than $600,000.
{"commentId":2815191,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"lunartick"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":2815363,"authorDomain":"tacitus13"}
So while Obama Tax cut gimmie, sound good, getting an actual raise in salary is far more likely under McCains plan
Well, that's assuming McCain's plan to revive the economy actually works. However, I agree for the most part. Most people here are only looking at the federal tax savings, and that's only part of the big picture.
How much would you save in federal taxes under a McCain or Obama presidency?
The federal books were in the black in 2001 — for the fourth consecutive year — but since then, the U.S. has returned to running huge deficits, including the largest in history in dollar terms, a $413 billion imbalance in 2004.
The federal books were in the black because the books were cooked! There was no surplus during the Clinton presidency.
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
The CBO's current forecast for the next decade doesn't look that bad on paper, projecting the budget will go into the black in 2012, giving the country a small surplus of $270 billion over the next 10 years.
Assuming that there's an unprecedented decade-long boom, of course, and that politicians of both parties won't waste lots of money.
Regardless of the baseline used, the government's debt would go up sharply — by $3.5 trillion under the Obama plan and by $5 trillion over the next decade under McCain's plan, the tax center estimates.
Does that factor in the large probability that the US dollar will drop in value even more as foreign countries holding the dollar become less interested in buying currency from a nation that cannot curb its deficits?
The problem was that the surplus forecast turned out to be wildly inaccurate because of an unforeseen recession that began in 2001 just as Bush was taking office and the soaring costs of fighting a global war on terror that began in the wake of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
The recession was actually expected to come in 2001 before the 2000 election and I certainly felt it coming before it arrived.
The Early 2000s recession had been predicted by economists for years, because the boom of the 1990s, which was accompanied by both low inflation and low unemployment, had already ceased in East Asia during that region's 1997 economic crisis. The 1990s were also a period of recession between 1995 and 1998 inclusive. The Early 2000s recession was not as bad as many predicted it would be, nor was it as bad as either of the two previous world-wide recessions.
{"commentId":2815363,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"tacitus13"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2815431,"authorDomain":"lpwillham"}
A salary of 600K would not be out of line for a small business with 10-20 employees. I know its hard to look at the world if you are making 30-75 a year but 600K for somebody who has the responsibility of running a small business isn't that large. Chances are they are still paying off personal debts from when they started the business and alot of Expansion usually is often owner financed.
We are talkinga bout small business, It sound like what you are talking about are "Little business" the type of business like a cafe, gift shop or florist who might have 1 or two employees maybe paying minimun wage or a dollar ot two above.
Those owners are getting hit under Obama plan because of the increase in cap on payroll taxes from 102-250K, those people who are the "little business owners", they are the ones likely supplying those 20K a year jobs. That is where you will see the higest unempleoyment as those 'little business' owners will really have to cut back because they will have less money to woork with.
{"commentId":2815431,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"lpwillham"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2815519,"authorDomain":"lunartick"}
And yet according to salary.com, the average salary for the owner of a business with fewer than 500 employees is $233,600. A salary of $600,000 is very much out of line. Not unheard of, but the owner is giving himself a very hefty salary. It sounds to me like you're not differentiating between the income and taxes of the business itself (which should be incorporated and exist as its own entity) versus the income and taxes of the business owner as an individual.
{"commentId":2815519,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"lunartick"}
- 8 votes
{"commentId":2817347,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
Well stated. Not only that but just where do you think that large companies are going to put their money should they be taxed higher? Off shore. That is where it has been heading because it just becones too expensive to do business here. You really have to follow the money to understand what all this means. Let me also say that if you bought a house 15- 20 years ago no figuring it the gain in equity will assit your retirement years, Obama is going to take more of it away with his increase in capital gains. Couple that with that fact that he wants to do away witht he secret ballot and unionize the country, no one will manufacture or operate here. Hoe deso that reconcile with Obama's job creation measures? It doesn't. They are in conflict with one another. The problem with the left is it is a popularity contest. You don't look at the issues, you just respin talking points. What a joke.
{"commentId":2817347,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2817526,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
Lunar Tick - If you worked your butt off building a business why shouldn't you take as large a salary as the business can afford? You own it. What keeps salary in check is revenue and costs. If the small business owner is taxed more, guess who winds up out of a job? You! The owner isn't going to make major changes in his spending and if he does have to that doesn't help the economy either. Small businesses create many jobs under Obama's plans they'll disappear. Then what? Please tell me how this plan makes any sense at all? It has already been labeled as "disastrous" by many independent economists.
{"commentId":2817526,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2817685,"authorDomain":"jwbuchan"}
If you worked your butt off building a business why shouldn't you take as large a salary as the business can afford?
Well, if you're smart, you wouldn't take that large of a salary because it would get taxed at a ridiculous rate.
{"commentId":2817685,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"jwbuchan"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2818698,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
Point being, if you own a business, it is your business how large a salary you take. Obviously there are tax and other considerations. I am responding to the idea that business owners should not be unfairly taxed or otherwise dictated to by government regarding their salary.
{"commentId":2818698,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2815321,"authorDomain":"thatfloridagirl"}
Do those people making under $19,000 pay enough tax to have Obama cut it an average of $567? Sounds suspicious to me.......
{"commentId":2815321,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"thatfloridagirl"}
- 1 vote
#6 - Mon Sep 8, 2008 9:05 AM EDT{"commentId":2815543,"authorDomain":"lpwillham"}
No they dont pay much taxes and they are the ones who use the most governments ervices such as food stamps, and section 8 housing assistance.
We give people food stamps yet we dont teach them how to shop in a nutricious manner and their kids wind up with health problems.
We "REWARD" low income people for having more kids, more kids=more food stamps, a bigger house, and if the child has any medical issue SSI, probably the most fraud ridden entitlement.
What we need to do in this country is stop rewarding or subsidizing people to have more kids. For taxpayers we should stop child tax credits after the second child. If you want to have more than two kids , fine, but you dont get a tax break. We need to stop the "earned income credit" or the have more kids get a bigger check credit.
The majority of people who utilize the majority of government services have the majority of children, and tend to fall below the poverty line of 20K for a family of 4 or 30K to get certain assitance like food stamps.. We need to encorage resposibility, not having more Kids to get bigger entitlement check.
Neither candidate wants to touch meaningful welfare and entitlement reform!
{"commentId":2815543,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"lpwillham"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2817799,"authorDomain":"MALife"}
I am a construction and factory worker that makes roughly around 19. I also have 4 kids and I have never turned to any government programs. It is true that there are many low-income people that take advantage of the welfare system and it makes me sick really. But, there are responsible people that use the system to help them get back on their feet. My father worked an automotive factory for 30 years and lost his job to mass layoffs. He used the food stamps and welfare to help him get by until he could retrain himself for something new(which is no easy thing for someone like him). We need to promote responsible use of the welfare system and just as you said stop rewarding those that take advantage of it. By the way, I paid 3,000 in federal taxes out of my 19,000 I made, that's not including what I paid in state and local. And the welfare system will not give those that make 19 very much, as they make "too much". Those that are on the system are the ones that will not work, have no education, and no training what so ever. Believe me, it makes those of use that really are scraping at the bottom of the barrel frustrated at those people. I work hard and don't have much to show for it, but they don't work at all and drive new cars. It's sick.
{"commentId":2817799,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"MALife"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":2818605,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
This is exactly why you don't vote for a party of entitlements. The Democrtas buy their votes through the use of entitlements and union pay offs. This isn't opinion it is fact. Follow the money. Look at NJ, what a joke!
{"commentId":2818605,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2819094,"authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
The idea that democrats policies drive more people toward government programs is a sick joke. The fact is that Bill Clinton moved more people off from welfare and into tax paying citizens then anyone in history. His polices created more then 20 million new jobs, which is all most poor people want, a chance to succeed, instead of being constantly held down into a near permanent poor class like the GOP does. The motto of the GOP leaders is "I got mine, screw the rest of you!"
{"commentId":2819094,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2819546,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
RD Snyder- aka: The Angry Leftist. You don't have a single fact. I'll give you some since you are clearly too inept to get them on your own:
- Democrat policies over the last 60 years have held minorities and women in place and they have fought to maintain those policies by their votes. Source: votesmart dot org.
- Dems like to scream big oil, but they grease big business and unions because they want all the cake! How many manufacturing losses despite union contributorship to democrat campaigns? Talk about stupid!
-Your impeached president Bubba facilitated the Enron collapse and then some.
-Bubba had Bin Ladin for the taking and blew it off.
Do you live in NJ?
{"commentId":2819546,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2819713,"authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
I checked out your home page and I now see where I made my big mistake, arguing with someone who creates a sign on name just to be a troll. You're now on my ignore list. Have an unhappy life.
{"commentId":2819713,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2820167,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
Vote Republican - The Country You Save May Be Your Own!!!!!
{"commentId":2820167,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2820301,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
RD Snyder - Being a Freelance Human Being has such great honor associated with it. Talk about a troll, your an atheist! You don't believe in anything unless it is the opposite of what anyone else states. Witless cretin!
{"commentId":2820301,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2816626,"authorDomain":"caesara"}
The objective of Obama should be simply to pound away at the McCain view as being more of the same of the past 8 years 'cause that's what we are going to get from the old geezer. The benefits the rich enjoyed in Bush 2a and 2b were exhausted largely on speculation or held as gold bars somewhere. Now the economy is exhausted from their "wilding".
Doubling down on blind, hard right ideology-based coddling of the rich would be a spectacular trainwreck to watch. The McCain people are hard-hitting campaigners (being largely Bush's people) who, as proven, install people who cannot govern.
{"commentId":2816626,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"caesara"}
- 1 vote
#7 - Mon Sep 8, 2008 10:44 AM EDT{"commentId":2817391,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
Hey moron! Where do you think Joe Biden comes from? He has been in the senate for over 30 years and is part of a legislature that has a lower approval rating than Bush!!! You don't make any sense!
{"commentId":2817391,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2819162,"authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
And the only reason the Congress HAS lower approval ratings is the result of the GOP screwing the people over for the first 6 years of Bush and doing everything they can to obstruct the Democrats while they struggle regain control.
Oh and before anyone lies and claims otherwise, no, the democrats are not in control of congress and haven't been since 1994.
{"commentId":2819162,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2819637,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
You just can't accept the fact that liberals are tax and spend elitists who want the celebrity and fame of power, but get it off the backs of the people they have screwed over for decades and they clearly have you brain washed as well. Watch that Kool Aide will get to you after a while. The dem candidates are so good that is why they keep back peddling on their positions right now. Obama is on the ropes right now and he is going to stay their. He is a hack just like Kerry is and the Orca from Cap Cod or should I say life guard. No, there is no hypocrisy on the left! Please!
{"commentId":2819637,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2816952,"authorDomain":"pbiddy10000"}
Dear Loved Ones:
I can't keep silent.
I am writing to you from the frontlines of the AIDS epidemic- Sub-saharan Africa- I have to tell you what I've witnessed.
In remote parts of rural Uganda, patients are literally wasting away in my arms- admitted into the hospital only to die. Food, toileting and laundry services must be provided by the patients' family. Most drugs are out of stock. Most doctors are disillusioned. Most people are hopeless.
I greet a relief worker from Darfur at a café in Kampala. He describes how happy he is to have come down with malaria- so he can leave the chaos and genocide just for one day.
A Zimbawbian couple with two small children describe how they have fled the political violence and economic depression that is Harare. Inflation has risen to the point that money has no value. Better to use it as toliet paper they insist.
Let me tell you what ties these stories together- the policies of our government the last 8 years.
We cannot make headway on poverty alleviation- we cannot foster democracy in Africa- we cannot convincingly denounce atrocities since squandering our money on two wars and tax cuts for the wealthy, shaming ourselves with Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and unflaggingly supporting totalitarian regimes as long as they sell us oil.
ENOUGH!
Patients, who are literally dying in my arms, hear my American accent- and want to know just one thing…Will I vote for Barack Obama?
The only way to show our sisters and brothers abroad that we recognize that these last 8 years have been a large step backwards - to say that we are going to change the behavior of the US in the world- is to change our country's leadership.
Trust me: the whole world is watching, the whole world is praying, the whole world is counting on you. Please vote in November for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Love, Marcy
{"commentId":2816952,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"pbiddy10000"}
- 1 vote
#8 - Mon Sep 8, 2008 11:07 AM EDT{"commentId":2817427,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
paul from atlanta - The Bush adminsitration and their support of charitiable organization has contributed and donated more money and resources to the issues you are talking about than all previous administrations combined! Do you actually do any research before you make these comments?
{"commentId":2817427,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2817521,"authorDomain":"jwbuchan"}
Do you actually do any research before you make these comments?
Copy/Paste spammers aren't usually very big on research.
{"commentId":2817521,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"jwbuchan"}
{"commentId":2825651,"authorDomain":"hmm"}
Dukenukem-477938 where's your back up? you say a lot back it up please.
{"commentId":2825651,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"hmm"}
{"commentId":2817701,"authorDomain":"rxrjones1"}
I say we need a flat tax. We should have a work Americans first program that bumps all illegals and green card workers. Put Americans first and domestic aid programs and if any money is left over then talk foreign aid programs. More taxes lead to less work for American workers. Take care of home first.
{"commentId":2817701,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"rxrjones1"}
- 1 vote
#9 - Mon Sep 8, 2008 11:54 AM EDT{"commentId":2818087,"authorDomain":"labargelori"}
On Lowering Gas Prices:
The following was taken from an article in the October '08 issue of Glamour. A panel of experts from nonpartisan groups, with no horse in the race, were brought together to analyze each candidates stance on lowering gas prices.
"McCain:
"We have to drill here and drill now. Not wait and see if there's areas to explore… But drill here and drill now."
His Stand:
Lift bans on offshore drilling in U.S. waters. Encourage domestic oil and gas reproduction. He proposed a gas tax "holiday" to temporarily lift the 18.4 cent federal excise tax at the pump.
Expert View:
Offshore drilling could lower gas prices a bit, but not before 2030, according to research from the U.S. Department of Energy. More than 320 economists signed an open letter saying the gas tax holiday wouldn't significantly help consumers.
OBAMA:
"We simply cannot pretend that we can drill our way out of this problem."
His Stand:
At press time, he backed a compromise to allow limited offshore drilling in exchange for encouraging alternative energy and more fuel-efficient cars. Would levy a tax on oil companies. Opposed gas tax "holiday".
EXPERT VIEW:
Obama's energy plan focuses mainly on the long term. According to the Presidential Climate Action Project, his ideas are generally "on target" because they strive to make the U.S. less dependent on oil and other fossil fuels and would develop alternative energy resources over time."
{"commentId":2818087,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"labargelori"}
- 1 vote
#10 - Mon Sep 8, 2008 12:22 PM EDT{"commentId":2818518,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
McCain also proposed alternatives and in fact tied them to a jobs creation policy. The point of drilling now is why wait! The longer it takes to make an impact, the sooner we should get started. Alternative energy technologies are at least 10 years away so you must do something in the mean time. Gas is also necessary which is why Palin supported the project up in Alaska. Yes, of course the holiday isn't an answer, we all already know that, it simply helps people in the summer months to afford taking some trips and further encourage spending through tourism. Again, like most on the left you like to be selective in your facts rather than provide the entire story.
{"commentId":2818518,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2819741,"authorDomain":"sobriquet"}
I would rather take a trip in the winter! I can ride my bike in the summer...
{"commentId":2819741,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"sobriquet"}
{"commentId":2820336,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
Obviously people take trips in the summer to destinations they drive to. Get it? Nice weather, kids out of school, etc.
{"commentId":2820336,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2818403,"authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
The thing that many voters can't seem to do is separate the rhetoric from what is really being said and the intention. It is not enough to simply look at the tax plan, but the policy positions as well. The most devavstaing of all is the position Democats have in the Employee Free Choice Act. Careful! It isn't what you would think from the name. This is a pro-union position from the left. Up until now, a worker could placate union supporters and sign a statement saying that he or she wants a union and then vote against the union when he was protected by the secrecy of the voting booth. This law would eliminate that. The AFL-CIO calls the "Employee Free Choice Act" its million-member mobilization. Some facts:
- Unions are making an all-out push to get this passed, planning to spend $360 million on the 2008 election, $200 million more than in 2004 general election.
- One union alone, the Service Employees International Union, plans on spending $75 million this year, much of it to help the Democratic presidential nominee. Compare that to the $83 million that John McCain will be able to spend during the fall general election.
- The Service Employees International Union is already committed to making 10 million telephone calls early next year to congressmen to ensure this bill gets enacted.
- Unions are desperate to increase membership. Membership has been declining for decades, the share of private-sector workers who are union members falling from around 35 percent in the 1950s to 8.2 percent in 2007. - Public-sector union membership has declined, but much more slowly, still representing 36 percent of government workers in 2007. The decline has continued under both Democratic and Republican presidents.
Obama promised to help unions and protect their workers from competition. He wants to renegotiate the NAFTA agreement signed under President Clinton. He opposes free trade agreements with such strong American allies as Colombia. He has long been opposed to educational vouchers, something teachers' unions also strongly oppose. But despite all his troubles with working-class voters, it is hard to think of much else that Obama could promise unions.
Obama claims that strengthening unions is good because unions will "lift up the middle-class in this country once more." But protecting teachers unions from competition comes at the expense of students. Protecting workers from trade competition comes at the expense of customers and even other workers (e.g., if you protect steel workers from competition, the prices of American-made cars rise relative to foreign-made ones).
Unionization virtually always raises some workers' salaries at the expense of other workers. If unions insist on increasing worker pay by threatening strikes that shut down companies, firms reduce the number of workers they hire. Some workers gain higher wages, but only at the expense of causing other workers to lose their jobs. Possibly this last point explains why unions want to scrape secret ballots.
It is hard to believe that Obama and Democrats really think that eliminating secret ballots is a good idea. Surely, they are not going to start proposing we start getting rid of secret ballots all together and let voters simply sign cards? But their desire to impose unionization, whether workers really want it, is overriding their common sense. Their proposal will make the country and most workers poorer.
Much of this information comes from John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.
People need to understand that much of the manufacturing that left this country is partly because unions made it unprofitable to be here. Unions served a good purpose for a long time, but over the last several decades that have destroyed America's competitive edge. If you couple this policy position alone with a tax plan from Obama and his desire to have government run health care, put the for sale sign up and move now, because it spells absolute disaster for this country. How many examples woud you like?
{"commentId":2818403,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"dukenukem"}
- 3 votes
#11 - Mon Sep 8, 2008 12:41 PM EDT{"commentId":2818845,"authorDomain":"fidelg3"}
"I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated," Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. Mr. Obaminable should go back to flipping burgers, not flipping positions. I am sure he will soon flip on his stance on the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac issue.
I heard Mr. Obaminable is asking Hillary to help him campaign to secure the women's vote. I think it is a little too late after rejecting her for the VP. I don't see the McCain/Palin team asking another woman for campaign help. Can't Mr. Obaminable handle anything himself?
What about that other guy....Mr Beaten....I mean Biden? What change can he bring after spending 30+ years in Washington? What can he do in 4 years that he hasn't done in 30+ years?
I also heard Sarah Palin got more votes to get elected mayor of Wassilla than Mr Beaten got for his bid to be President.
{"commentId":2818845,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"fidelg3"}
#12 - Mon Sep 8, 2008 1:04 PM EDT{"commentId":2819334,"authorDomain":"westrm"}
This all goes back to the BS income tax problem. The U.S. could save a ton of money with a flat tax system with a very small IRS dept as collectors and enforcers. If everyone paid there fair share including corporations, the economy would eventually stabilize under a realistic budget as a basic fundamental starting-point.
Provided the line item veto is enacted making the federal government stick to a real budget for a change. Additionally, having un-planned budgetary issues like wars would need to stop as well.
C'mon, if U.S. house-holds operated like the government financially everyone would have a huge deficit and eventually go bankrupt.
Of course we would need to move to a green economy, and you know how the special interest feel about that...
When you get right down to it, Bush over spent his budget and congress let him do it. False economic boosters like the tech and housing bubbles are only bandages for the rich and financially well-connected. How could two career oil guys not see China's and India's impact on the world's fossil fuel coming unless they did not want too. Of sure, distract with a war of terrorism...
This is so stupid it is almost to sad to laugh, but, we'll just keep voting in the wrong politicians on important partisan wedge issues like abortion that do not solve real problems facing America.
Good going people, keep buying into it...
... they are laughing at us all!
{"commentId":2819334,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"westrm"}
#13 - Mon Sep 8, 2008 1:30 PM EDT{"commentId":2820363,"authorDomain":"AFewQuestionsComments"}
Personally, I love tax-cuts, especially when they save me money. Never-the-less, if we have to have taxes I would like them to be even-handed, and be structured in such a way that they help our prosperity. I also like balanced budgets. The need to balance your budget really tells you what you can afford and what you cannot.
During the convention McClain decried what he called the failure of current Republican elites to follow the traditional Republican ideology of "supply-side" economics. McClain says he will practice supply-side economics, McClain said he won't let Washington change him.
Based on what I saw during Reagan-omics, "supply-side" economics does not work, and Reagan really proved it because the only way he could keep the economy going with supply-side economics was by record-busting budget deficits. GW Bush proved supply-side doesn't work again while he had a Republican congress. He got his tax cuts for the wealthy and had to run up huge budget deficits to pay for the spending required to overcome the negative impact of his supply-side economics (just like Reagan did and just like McClain will).
In my opinion, supply-side doesn't work because we have a consumer-driven economy. (Perhaps Obama should say "It's consumer-driven, stupid!") I think Clinton understood that the economy is consumer-driven, that is what enabled him to get budget surpluses and at the same time have a surging economy. "Consumer-driven" must be difficult for John McCain and the reformed-Republicans to get. McCain believes the economy is wealthy-driven, by suppliers. It seems to me that McClain believes that upholding his "ideology" (supply-side economics) is more important than understanding how the the economy works. I think that if McClain and his reformed-Republicans get into power, and they "suddenly realize" that supply-side economics doesn't work, they too will maximize spending and deficits to hide and compensate for their ideology's failures (just like GW Bush and Reagan did). The benefit of "supply-side" economics for the reformed-Republicans is they can still count the gold they figure they got to keep from it, although in reality they might have had more gold if the economy had really prospered.)
McClain believes that the chronic failures of "supply-side economics" never really happened. Instead he prefers to put blame on 'some Republicans who were changed by Washington'. Or perhaps, the fault really lies not in supply-side economics but with the fates, or maybe the Republicans just had a off seven years, or maybe the cleaners lost their suits, or maybe they lost the ball in the sun, or maybe it was a windy day, or maybe it was bad water, or maybe their shoelaces came untied, or maybe it was the people who were out of power, or perhaps it was just that "Washington" changed them,... but it is most likely, in my opinion, it was just that "supply-side economics' was the wrong idea to begin with. McClain proposes to throw out the good lessons of the past eight years, learning from what went wrong ... and keep the bad ideas, supply-side economics.
McClain said the Republicans went to Washington to change Washington but instead they got changed by it. So what is McClain going to do differently to get different results? Apparently nothing, since he swears he's going to go with Republican "tradition", and he's going to make permanent exactly the same tax policies handed down to him by those 'not-as-good, Washington-changed, unreformed-Republicans' he's pretending to run away from. Making the actions of the unreformed-Republicans permanent is the opposite of reform. Well, maybe it is a special kind of reform, fake-reform. McClain is planning to go into the same situation with the same ideas and plans as GW Bush did, but McCain is telling us we should expect different results. Why?
Consider a recent classic and drastic example of the failure of "supply-side" economics. GW Bush "suddenly" found that given the unreformed-Republican tax policy favoring the rich over the middle-class and poor ... the poor and middle-class no longer had the money they needed to spend to actually make the economy work.... so, Bush had to send the middle-class and poor, a check, a stimulus check, and the cost of those checks went directly into the budget deficit. To save the economy from the tax policy McClain wants to make permanent, Bush literally had to send money to the people McClain and he "prefer to tax". GW Bush finally figured out that money in the hands of the poor and middle-class is really what keeps the economy going. I think GW Bush, unlike McClain, actually managed to learn that you don't get the economy going by years of supply-side economics.
McClain says that he will run the economy based on traditional Republican supply-side "ideology", but I prefer if the economy is run based on practical problem-solving, not ideology (as McClain calls it). There is no one solution, no one policy, no one perspective, no one ideology that is effective in every economic situation. I believe that policy has to adapt and change.
Does McClain really think GWBush and Reagan ran up those deficits just for no good reason?I think that like his unreformed-Republican predecessor, McClain will have to make efforts to hide the notorious failures of "supply-side" economics. And I think that McClain's reformed-Republican colleagues will especially need the pork-barrel spending McClain now decries, because in the world of "supply-side economics", pork-barrel spending will provide desperately needed stimulation to the economies of their home states. But then again maybe McClain knows what's best ... maybe McClain knows that the rich need the tax-break, not the middle-class or poor and that is why he plans to make the tax policies of those Washington-changed, unreformed-Republicans permanent ... Maybe McClain knows your little bit of economic suffering won't hurt you much (and it definitely won't hurt McClain).
McClain knows that the current, unreformed Republicans spent way too much ... way too much to balance the budget. But, McClain and the reformed-Republicans don't want to get the money to pay for it from the wealthy. So... if they spend and spend and don't want to tax the wealthy (the primary beneficiaries of their spending) ... who DO they expect to pay for their spending? Let's see...it we take all us taxpayers, and separate out the truly wealthy ... who does that leave?
In my opinion supply-side economics doesn't work, but that is not for any ideological reason. It is because economic activity only happens when there is demand energizing economic activity. I think we all realize that if there is money to be made out there ... somebody will figure out how to make it. However, you can sit by the road with plenty of supply, but if nobody has the money to buy it, or if what you have in supply is not in demand, you won't make any money. Demand pushes the economy, not supply.
I think Obama would make a better president for the economy because his policy is to learn from the past and adapt accordingly, as opposed to McClain's self-declared determination to implement discredited ideologies. Obama (like Clinton) has no "supply-side economics" baggage pulling toward defective policies.
Its funny how the reformed-Republicans want to make permanent the exact-same tax-changes passed by those (not-as-good, Washington-changed, unreformed) Republicans. Shouldn't the reformed-Republicans want to reform the tax-policies of the (not-as-good, Washington-changed, unreformed) Republicans? ... unless, of course, the reform is just a fake designed to win an election? Maybe McCain is really a Republican in sheep's clothing? And I have one more question. If GW Bush is a (not-as-good, Washington-changed, unreformed) Republican from the past because he ran up big deficits, then wouldn't that make Ronald Reagan also one of the (not-as-good, Washington-changed, unreformed) Republican too? Reagan ran up big deficits, and his tax-cuts were far more even-handed than the (not-as-good, Washington-changed, unreformed) GW Bush supported tax cuts that McCain and the reformed-Republicans now want to make permanent.
{"commentId":2820363,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"AFewQuestionsComments"}
- 2 votes
#14 - Mon Sep 8, 2008 2:21 PM EDT{"commentId":2826987,"authorDomain":"rxrjones1"}
I heard last night on CNN that Obama could not get on the DNC floor in the 2000 election campaign. Then in 2004 he gave a speech at the DNC. Now in 2008 it's all about him. People you had better check out how he got there. He has stepped on a lot of people to do this and it is all about him not the American people. On CNN last night they also reported he loved hearing his voice over large crowds and the feeling from their return applause. I had also heard on the radio that the Dem's had sent thirty lawyers to Alaska to check out Sarah. The same way he got in the Illinois State Senate is what he is trying to do to McCain and Sarah. All so he can hear himself speak as President. Is it true he wants to legalize the 14 million illegals in America and have open borders? Is it true he also wants to put them on the SS rolls too? If you will go back and check, President Johnson close the Social Security Funds and put the money in general accounting to pay for the Vietnam War. By the way Carter and Nixon (up to Clinton) all had a Democrat controlled Congress and Senate. The Republicans never had both houses until Bill Clinton. Then the Republican controlled houses did welfare reform that Clinton signed. The Republican's started off good but, they too fell off to the wayside drunk on money. I do believe in term limits but, at the way both party's are going; it should be six years in office and ten years in the pen for what they did.
{"commentId":2826987,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"rxrjones1"}
- 1 vote
#15 - Mon Sep 8, 2008 6:32 PM EDT{"commentId":2829768,"authorDomain":"mb04carey"}
The main difference is that Obama HAS a plan. McBush has a non-plan---all he says is he's not going to do what Obama does. He just doesn't have a clue about too much other than Vietnam 4 decades ago!!!
{"commentId":2829768,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"mb04carey"}
- 1 vote
#16 - Mon Sep 8, 2008 9:18 PM EDT{"commentId":2829820,"authorDomain":"tacitus13"}
The main difference is that Obama HAS a plan.
You mean he has an ever-changing plan. I really don't know where he stands on any issue any more. Not that I'm impressed with McCain's lack of a plan, but I think Obama will do some real damage to the economy with a Democratic majority in Congress to rubber-stamp any decisions he does finally make.
{"commentId":2829820,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"tacitus13"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2829893,"authorDomain":"mb04carey"}
At least a plan exists.......do you think McBush will do something to benefit us? LOL LOL LOL. Personally, I've had enough of Chaney and Rove and that's who would be "advising" him. Maybe Palin will have a plan...oh I forgot she doesn't know what the VP does....other than possibly one liner snark attacks....being the great Christian mother and all!!!
{"commentId":2829893,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"mb04carey"}
{"commentId":2836590,"authorDomain":"rxrjones1"}
The plan? Plan on paying higher taxes. There will be no tax cut for lower income people. When the high income people and the companies that will pay a higher tax will just pass them on to the consumer's. You and me. Those that can not pass the taxes on will cut employees to reduce cost. The wind fall profit tax will go straight to the pumps and oil and gas production will be reduced to lower their tax burden. Then we will be looking at high transportation cost, farmers will have to raise the prices to cover their fuel and transportation cost and on and on... Six percent unemployment is the bi-produce of the fourteen million illegals in this country. They are also the cause of lower wages. The loss of American workers in the construction industry can be seen by just looking at building. These are not jobs nobody wants. Builders have cut pay when jobs or staffed with illegals and green card holders. Regan legalized three million illegals and that got us fourteen plus million more. Obama and the rest of the Democrats (alone with some Republicans) want to legalize these and give them title to Social Security Benefits. Can we afford this kind of change? We do need to lower our Country's red tape but, why don't they try a flat tax, say 10% as God teaches in the Bible. That would be a fair tax across the board. If the bureaucrats can not run the Country on 10% we need to run them all off and start with a new bunch on probation. Maybe we need to put all those up there now on probation.
{"commentId":2836590,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"rxrjones1"}
- 1 vote
#17 - Tue Sep 9, 2008 10:34 AM EDT{"commentId":2850731,"authorDomain":"morikawarandim"}
check out this article,
on our young soldiers and veterans...mccain wants to take things away, and give tax breaks to the rich..here you go, read this one:
McCain & Veterans' Health Care
McCain Has Repeatedly Voted Against Increasing Funding for Veterans Healthcare to Keep Tax Cuts for the Rich.
John McCain has repeatedly voted to keep intact tax cuts for the rich, rather than provide American veterans with adequate healthcare funding. McCain has repeatedly voted against amendments in the Senate that would have added funding for healthcare services, but eliminated tax cuts for the wealthy. Funding would have covered such important services as improving care at veterans' hospitals, providing mental health services to soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse problems. [2006 Senate Vote #7, 2/2/06; 2005 Senate Vote #343, 11/17/05; 2003 Senate Vote #74, 3/21/03]
2006: McCain Voted Against Eliminating Increased Fees And
Co-Payments For Veterans Health Care Program By Closing Corporate Tax Loopholes.
In 2006, McCain voted against the Kerry amendment that would eliminate increased fees and co-payments for veterans in the TRICARE health care program by raising the discretionary spending limit by approximately $10 billion. The provisions would have been fully offset by eliminating creating corporate tax breaks. [2006 Senate Vote #67, 3/16/2006]
McCain Stood Out in Opposing Veterans' Healthcare Funding.
McCain was one of only 13 Republicans to vote against an amendment that added over $400 million for inpatient and outpatient care for veterans. [2006 Senate Vote #98, 4/26/06]
McCain Puts Politics Over Vets; Would Rather Be Out Campaigning Than Supporting Our Troops.
McCain missed an important vote this year that supported the funding of the troops in Iraq and guaranteed them adequate medical care upon returning home. [2007 Senate Vote #76, 3/15/07]
McCain Blamed Scandal on Rumsfeld's Management of War.
Days after the story broke, McCain told a group of Georgia legislators that "the fruits of Rumsfeld's policy were on display at Walter Reed military hospital in Washington... It's well chronicled that the war was mismanaged." [Atlanta Journal Constitution, 2/22/2007]
FLASHBACK 2004: McCain Refused To Call For Secretary Rumsfeld's Resignation.
McCain would not call for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation, saying that the President "can have the team that he wants around him." McCain said that he respected Bush's decision to keep Rumsfeld around. McCain said, "I respect the president. The president of the United States was re-elected by a majority of the American people, and I respect his right. And I will work with the president obviously and with the secretary of defense." [MSNBC.com, 12/15/04; CNN.com, 12/5/04]
FLASHBACK 2006: McCain Refused to Join Calls For Rumsfeld's Resignation, Said He Would Work With Rumsfeld.
"But the president has the right and earned the right as the president of the United States to appoint his team," and he has confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld. "I will continue to work with Secretary Rumsfeld as much as I can as long as he is secretary of Defense. We have to, because we need to win this war." [East Valley Tribune, 415/2006; http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/63311 ]April 15, 2006 - 6:13AM
Busy McCain expresses views on Rumsfeld, immigration, Iraq war
Paul Giblin, Tribune
Sen. John McCain joined the ranks of retired generals who have said they have no confidence in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
{"commentId":2850731,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"morikawarandim"}
#18 - Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:43 AM EDT{"commentId":2854323,"authorDomain":"rxrjones1"}
Were there big earmarks tagged on these bills? I don't see McCain standing on the Vet's health care benefits unless there was earmarks tied to them. He knows the needs Vets face and the help they need. Being he is a Vet himself. If there is anyone that would put a Vet first it would be McCain.
{"commentId":2854323,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"rxrjones1"}
{"commentId":2851006,"authorDomain":"morikawarandim"}
regarding taxes..
hmm,
what about if everybody gets taxed equally...say..5%?
five percent of 100.00 is a lot less than five percent of a million dollars..
oh yea...some of those people got caught sending their money, or hiding it from IRS, via leichteinstein?
I Never heard of that country...
just a thought?
{"commentId":2851006,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"morikawarandim"}
#19 - Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:13 AM EDT{"commentId":2853981,"authorDomain":"rxrjones1"}
I say 10% would be a fair tax. 10 cents on the dollar, 10 dollars on a hundred... No write offs, no shelters, 10% off the top of wages, 10% off the top of investment profits returns and product profits. No personal home sales tax. No inheranitance tax. No taxes on SS or VA benefits. If a person can not make it on 90% of their money they can not make it on 100%. By the way it would be $100,000.00 on that million and each one made after that too. Then there would be the 10% of the interest it made. With a flat tax there would be no income tax returns. Just send in a w-2 showing you paid in your 10%. Down size the IRS by 75% or more also. That would be a big cut in government spending.
{"commentId":2853981,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"rxrjones1"}
{"commentId":2854111,"authorDomain":"rxrjones1"}
If a person sales the inheranitance the profits above what it was worth when it was received should be taxed.
{"commentId":2854111,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"rxrjones1"}
{"commentId":2943744,"authorDomain":"AFewQuestionsComments"}
Obama is advocating a middle class tax cut, and he is merely proposing to let the existing temporary tax breaks for the wealthy expire.
Even former Bush strategist Carl Rove has criticized McCain for lying. Alan Greenspan has said the McCain's tax proposals as unrealistic, and challenged McCain to show how they could possibly work. Since McCain is lying in his campaign then we really don't know what he will do in office, especially if his proposals are unrealistic. Having unrealistic proposals seems the perfect cover for McCain to not apply what he says while he is office. It will be almost like he didn't really lie.
If McCain lies in his campaign, what will he do in office? We will have lots of fun under McCain as we face the unknown in the dark.
Another factor is that McClain has said that the Social Security System is going to go broke, and he, McCain, has said that he will refuse to spend the money to fix it. That can't be good for the economy.
Now although in reality Obama has proposed Clinton style tax-cuts and no tax increases, however I, not Obama, have a perspective on taxes and the economy that I wanted to give...but you can pass it up if you want...
Tax abatement for the consumers, middle class and poor, can stimulate the economy by stimulating demand and consumption. The supply-side economics proposed by McCain has a history of not succeeding, and extreme deficit spending has been needed to make it seem to work.
Contrary to the assumptions of supply-side, the economy is consumer-driven. That is why currently tax breaks for consumers make sense but tax-breaks for corporations do not. I don't think corporation can just pass taxes along to the consumer. If there are lower-cost alternative products or services available to the consumer, the corporation will have to find an alternative strategy, and they find all kinds of alternative strategies everyday so that is not that big of a deal for them. Even if corporations could pass the cost along that would not be a reason to give them tax-breaks. Currently, the oil industry receives big tax-breaks in the form of subsidies, and pollution abatement (MDTE) but they still try to get every cent they can out of the consumer. So giving the oil industry a tax-break did not lead them to pass the tax-break along to the consumer. Instead the oil industry took record profits. However, in the long term, the consumer was able to humble even the oil industry to some extent since by stopping discretionary driving, buying hybrids, etc the consumer was able to reduce demand to the extent that the oil industry was unable to sustain $4 a gallon oil, for the moment anyway. Consumers are buying hybrids and high MPG cars and reducing driving as an alternative to letting the oil companies pass costs along to them. That's only one example. There are many other examples of how consumers can move the economy ahead, when they have the dollars.
With consumer tax-breaks, even if industry did "pass tax along" they would do so by providing/selling goods and services that are desired and needed by the consumer, which is good for the economy. That is far better than giving industries a tax-break, as is advocated by McCain's supply-side economics, so they can spend it on advertising, lobbying Congress for more subsidies, and excessive CEO compensation.
That's why I think tax-breaks for consumers make more sense than tax-breaks for the wealthy/corporations.
{"commentId":2943744,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"AFewQuestionsComments"}
#20 - Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:55 PM EDT{"commentId":2955294,"authorDomain":"EthanMessier"}
I don't think we can honestly say that we know one group of people will spend their money more wisely than another. Granted, big corporations have a habit of sending their money out of the country, but on the other hand (to echo a previous commenter), average consumers don't realize how many of the products they are buying are imports. Making gross generalizations about the methods and intents of those in different tax brackets will help nothing. Overall, what will really help everybody is taking the money out of the government's hands, and putting it back in the taxpayers hands. I trust MYSELF to spend my own money wisely, whatever you do with yours is up to you. What I don't trust is our federal government thinking that they know better where my money should be spent.
{"commentId":2955294,"threadId":"351979","contentId":"1840173","authorDomain":"EthanMessier"}
- 1 vote
#21 - Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:30 PM EDT{"canLink":false,"threadId":"351979","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop Tracking
COMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
