Why McCain would be a mediocre president

[methos]

Less tax=>more income=>more investment=>long term growth (investment is the only way to achieve long term growth)

The only way incomes would rise out of proportion with tax cuts is if the money was invested and yielded returns greater than investment.

Athlete Salaries have to do with their unions, and if CEOs run their companies into the ground, they won't have 7 figure incomes for long.

 

 

Bullshit. Supply-side economics does not work. Economists did a number of studies on it after Reagan put the long-held theory into action and investment actually declined less than one percent. The premise behind it was that it would increase investment, and it did not.

 

Bush tries it again, and I am sure they have done studies on it, but I won’t even bother to look, for it's easy enough to see where that investment is going this time; not within our borders. We tax them less, and they take that money and build factories abroad, yeah, that's a great plan. You must be either incredibly stupid or one of the very few benefitting from it, which is it, and don't tell me, show me how it all works, try Google scholar, and good luck, you'll need it.

[Floyd Lawson]

First of all, Palin has already done her own wealth transfer, increasing taxes on the oil companies and then increasing payments to Alaskans from $2000 a year to $1200, and if you go back to the articles I linked to, it was to help them with the higher cost of gas and fuel oil. For all the complaining by BP, Mobil and others, they did not decrease their investment in drilling for oil in Alaska.

 

Second of all, I could give a damn if the wealthiest 1 percent pay 37 percent of the taxes. Increase it to 38 percent. The "The rich people are the ones that own businesses that employee people." argument is more "trickle-down" economics, which has been disproven as a valid economic theory.

 

Third, as a middle class American I'll be damned if I'll be an apologist for the wealthiest. No, I do not buy into the argument that increasing their taxes will reduce investment. Utter nonsense. Besides, with tax cuts under Reagan, and the current Bush, not certain about Bush 41 or Clinton, what's happened with the annual incomes of the wealthiest? You'd have to be blind not to see that it's gone up exponentially. CEO with seven and eight figure incomes and golden parachutes, regardless of stock or company performance. Pro athletes with seven figure salaries for even some rookies. Actors and directors of some of the poorest performing movies and TV shows with seven and eight figure incomes. The annual percentage increase in the incomes of the wealthiest is far higher than yours or mine.

 

All your arguments against taxing the wealthy is either disingenuous or seriously misplaced.

It's not "trickle down", it's free market economics. Why do you want to penalize people for being wealthy, who's worked hard, got a good education and made a comfortable life for himself and family. You cite movie stars and athletes, that's the free market at work. If you and I did not buy high priced movie tickets or tickets to sporting events or buy the products that sponsor the same, then those salaries would be less. After all people are paying to see their "favorite" star or athlete. Do you ever buy any sports logo paraphernalia?

 

Class envy;

'The annual percentage increase in the incomes of the wealthiest is far higher than yours or mine".

[Len_A]

Less tax=>more income=>more investment=>long term growth (investment is the only way to achieve long term growth)

The only way incomes would rise out of proportion with tax cuts is if the money was invested and yielded returns greater than investment.

Athlete Salaries have to do with their unions, and if CEOs run their companies into the ground, they won't have 7 figure incomes for long.

I have a minor in economics - you're preaching to the choir on investment. However, athletes, CEO's, overpaid actors, overpaid musicians, etc, all seem to come out on top, and often with the help of the consumer class. Movie, concert, and baseball game tickets are ridiculously higher than they were ten years ago, municipalities (tax payers) are extorted into paying for new stadiums, etc. And CEO's, headline musicians and actors, pro athletes - all their salaries/incomes have risen exponentially in comparison to the average workers income, including all the workers who provide the support services to the same CEO's, headline musicians and actors, pro athletes, and it hasn't had a damn thing to do with investment.

 

Free agency has far more to do with athletes salaries than their unions. In case you haven't noticed, it's the team owners that are bidding the salaries, one athlete at a time. In fact, company boards of directors are doing the same thing with CEO's salaries.

[V8 Ford]

Supply-side economics does not work. Economists did a number of studies on it after Reagan put the long-held theory into action and investment actually declined less than one percent. The premise behind it was that it would increase investment, and it did not.

You're forgoing the important principal of "All Things Equal". Whether investment declined or increased isn't important, what's important is whether the policy's impact was positive or negative. Investment very well could have declined, if the decline was less than otherwise would have happened, it succeeded, and there's no reason why it shouldn't have. Even if the investment was 100% off shore as the increase in global productivity would lead to an increase in productivity at home resulting from more trade and more efficient utilization of resources worldwide.

 

If you'd rather see taxes raised, and the revenue used for a social safety net and stabilization policy, that's fine, but recognize what you forgo. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no right policy, only a right policy for a desired outcome.

[Len_A]

It's not "trickle down", it's free market economics. Why do you want to penalize people for being wealthy, who's worked hard, got a good education and made a comfortable life for himself and family. You cite movie stars and athletes, that's the free market at work. If you and I did not buy high priced movie tickets or tickets to sporting events or buy the products that sponsor the same, then those salaries would be less. After all people are paying to see their "favorite" star or athlete. Do you ever buy any sports logo paraphernalia?

People who worked hard like who, Britney Spears? Give her a tax cut for what? To buy another Mercedes to go run over someone else's foot with? Who else, Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd and Freddie Mac CEO Richard Syron? Between the two of them, they earned nearly $30 million, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are being taken over, and you don't want those two guy's taxes to be raised...why again? If they pay a bit more in taxes, exactly what bad thing is going to happen? They won't go take another vacation to the Hamptons?

 

I don't care if it's the free market at work - I'm far from the only person who thinks they're overpaid, and the so-called "free market" isn't keeping their income in pay-for-performance mode, and frankly, I'm not certain it ever did. Regardless of what you call it, I'm a firm believer in the graduated income tax system. Let 'em pay more.

 

And you can call it class envy until you're blue in the face, I call you an apologist for the wealthy, and frankly, that makes you foolish in my limited view.

Edited September 7, 2008 by Len_A

[fmccap]

I don't care if it's the free market at work - I'm far from the only person who thinks they're overpaid, and the so-called "free market" isn't keeping their income in pay-for-performance mode, and frankly, I'm not certain it ever did. Regardless of what you call it, I'm a firm believer in the graduated income tax system. Let 'em pay more.

1. Do you like sports or entertainment?

 

2. If so do you participate as a consumer in it?

 

3. If someone makes more than you or I what does that have to do with us?

[RaZor]

What is your logic for saying that the rich should pay more. Currently the wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. You have class envy. The rich people are the ones that own businesses that employee people. If the left (insert Obama/Biden) continues with these proposals to raise taxes on wealthy people, what do you think these people will do? Create more jobs? Invest in real estate development? The left always has tried to transfer wealth through redistribution. It doesn't work, look at Russia.

Floyd, Floyd, Floyd. You are one gullible fool. You still believe that “trickle down” economics actually has ever, or even more important . . . was ever INTENDED to work.

 

It was nothing more than a trojan horse that was used to get approval for the huge tax cuts to the rich. You need to read up on David Stockman (Reagan’s budget director). Apparently you never read Reagan approved biographic either. Reagan didn’t give two shits for the common American. What he was all about was helping his wealthy friends. Maybe a simplistic explanation provided here http://rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm might help to understand.

 

Basically, according to conservatives, we need to provide tax breaks for the rich so that they can spend there money to create jobs.

 

If trickle down is a key tenet of conservative economic strategy, why would you stimulate the economy by giving money to the middle class instead of the rich?

 

In twenty-eight years it still hasn’t appeared to you that there is a method to award (via the tax structure) or give tax breaks to the rich (or anyone) who create jobs (AFTER the fact) --- instead of just blanket tax cuts to the rich. . . in the hopes that they MIGHT use their savings to create jobs.

 

The obvious answer is that supply-side (aka trickle down) economics was never meant to be anything more than an excuse to reward wealthy supporters of the party.

 

Wasn’t there a red flag that popped up to you – why didn’t they call it “flow-down” instead of “trickle-down”? It was never intended to trickle down.

 

After 28 years, we are going to have to pay the price for the failed economic policies that the Republicans have perpetrated on us (and yes there were Democrats that were lured along too) – but it has been, and was from the start, to shift the tax burden to those least able to bear the strain. We encourage financial profits over real economic growth, ended usury laws, relaxed regulation of the financial institutions, permitted ‘no bid’ contracts that lined pockets of a few with tax payer money, and even relaxed consumer protection. In short, we have become an economy that feeds on our own (especially the less sophisticated and economically weak) -- which is tantamount to being a cannibalistic society. This at a time when China, who has more people in their middle class even now than we have people -- and they want to double and even triple that number. Why is that? It's because a strong middle class are consumers. . . and what does that lead to?

 

Regulation is only needed when there exists temptation for corporations or individuals to take short cuts to profits – at the expense of others.

 

The “class warfare" or "redistribution", as you put, started 28 years ago and the results are that our economy is in the tank, we owe the Communists over a trillion dollars, 1% of our population owns close to 40% of our entire wealth – more than double any other industrial nation. We have the worst savings of any industrialized nation (which makes it difficult to make it through the ups and down cycles) and the people that MAKE OUR ECONOMY GO (through consumerism) aren’t able to keep it up.

 

Now if you want to attempt to prove that trickle down works – have at it – as no one –even economists have been able do so so far.

[Len_A]

1. Do you like sports or entertainment?

Some yes, some no.

 

2. If so do you participate as a consumer in it?

As little as possible. Over thirty bucks for the wife & I to go to the movies is a bit maddening. I'll even wait to rent movies until their off the "new release" wall, and my wife & I work on some on-line surveys that get us Blockbuster gift cards, so I don't actually spend my money on those either. Don't get me started on sports ticket prices.

 

3. If someone makes more than you or I what does that have to do with us?

I'm a firm believer in the graduated income tax. The seven and eight figure crowd can afford to pay a bit higher tax rate than you or I. I do not believe in a flat tax, or the "fair tax" proposal that's floating around out there.

[Len_A]

Floyd, Floyd, Floyd. You are one gullible fool. You still believe that "trickle down" economics actually has ever, or even more important . . . was ever INTENDED to work.

 

It was nothing more than a trojan horse that was used to get approval for the huge tax cuts to the rich. You need to read up on David Stockman (Reagan's budget director). Apparently you never read Reagan approved biographic either. Reagan didn't give two shits for the common American. What he was all about was helping his wealthy friends. Maybe a simplistic explanation provided here http://rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm might help to understand.

 

Basically, according to conservatives, we need to provide tax breaks for the rich so that they can spend there money to create jobs.

 

If trickle down is a key tenet of conservative economic strategy, why would you stimulate the economy by giving money to the middle class instead of the rich?

 

In twenty-eight years it still hasn't appeared to you that there is a method to award (via the tax structure) or give tax breaks to the rich (or anyone) who create jobs (AFTER the fact) --- instead of just blanket tax cuts to the rich. . . in the hopes that they MIGHT use their savings to create jobs.

 

The obvious answer is that supply-side (aka trickle down) economics was never meant to be anything more than an excuse to reward wealthy supporters of the party.

 

Wasn't there a red flag that popped up to you – why didn't they call it "flow-down" instead of "trickle-down"? It was never intended to trickle down.

 

After 28 years, we are going to have to pay the price for the failed economic policies that the Republicans have perpetrated on us (and yes there were Democrats that were lured along too) – but it has been, and was from the start, to shift the tax burden to those least able to bear the strain. We encourage financial profits over real economic growth, ended usury laws, relaxed regulation of the financial institutions, permitted 'no bid' contracts that lined pockets of a few with tax payer money, and even relaxed consumer protection. In short, we have become an economy that feeds on our own (especially the less sophisticated and economically weak) -- which is tantamount to being a cannibalistic society. This at a time when China, who has more people in their middle class even now than we have people -- and they want to double and even triple that number. Why is that? It's because a strong middle class are consumers. . . and what does that lead to?

 

Regulation is only needed when there exists temptation for corporations or individuals to take short cuts to profits – at the expense of others.

 

The "class warfare" or "redistribution", as you put, started 28 years ago and the results are that our economy is in the tank, we owe the Communists over a trillion dollars, 1% of our population owns close to 40% of our entire wealth – more than double any other industrial nation. We have the worst savings of any industrialized nation (which makes it difficult to make it through the ups and down cycles) and the people that MAKE OUR ECONOMY GO (through consumerism) aren't able to keep it up.

 

Now if you want to attempt to prove that trickle down works – have at it – as no one –even economists have been able do so so far.

Very well said. Floyd and the rest of his crowd are apologists for the wealthy that don't seem to know they're being used to provide justification and support for more tax cuts for the wealthy.

[Floyd Lawson]

People who worked hard like who, Britney Spears? Give her a tax cut for what? To buy another Mercedes to go run over someone else's foot with? Who else, Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd and Freddie Mac CEO Richard Syron? Between the two of them, they earned nearly $30 million, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are being taken over, and you don't want those two guy's taxes to be raised...why again? If they pay a bit more in taxes, exactly what bad thing is going to happen? They won't go take another vacation to the Hamptons?

 

I don't care if it's the free market at work - I'm far from the only person who thinks they're overpaid, and the so-called "free market" isn't keeping their income in pay-for-performance mode, and frankly, I'm not certain it ever did. Regardless of what you call it, I'm a firm believer in the graduated income tax system. Let 'em pay more.

 

And you can call class envy until you're blue in the face, I call you an apologist for the wealthy, and frankly, that makes you foolish in my limited view.

A minor in economics? It must have been very minor or you have forgotten basic economics. Please tell me how Britney Spears makes, as you say, too much money? Is there a law that says she has to make that much? Athletes in free agency are in fact the definition of a free market. The highest bidder wins, and you help pay for it when you go to a Tiger's or Lion's game. If you don't go, someone else will. You or I may not see the value, but someone does. Why do you think Boston and NY have such great teams, because they sellout which enables them to have higher payrolls which equals superstars.

I know you must understand these basic concepts. But I think with your current unfortunate circumstance of being unemployed had jaded your view of what is fair.

By graguated tax system you mean the more you make the higher % you pay. Then tell me what is the incentive to maximize your earning, to pay more taxes than people who don't?

[Floyd Lawson]

Floyd, Floyd, Floyd. You are one gullible fool. You still believe that “trickle down” economics actually has ever, or even more important . . . was ever INTENDED to work.

 

It was nothing more than a trojan horse that was used to get approval for the huge tax cuts to the rich. You need to read up on David Stockman (Reagan’s budget director). Apparently you never read Reagan approved biographic either. Reagan didn’t give two shits for the common American. What he was all about was helping his wealthy friends. Maybe a simplistic explanation provided here http://rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm might help to understand.

 

Basically, according to conservatives, we need to provide tax breaks for the rich so that they can spend there money to create jobs.

 

If trickle down is a key tenet of conservative economic strategy, why would you stimulate the economy by giving money to the middle class instead of the rich?

 

In twenty-eight years it still hasn’t appeared to you that there is a method to award (via the tax structure) or give tax breaks to the rich (or anyone) who create jobs (AFTER the fact) --- instead of just blanket tax cuts to the rich. . . in the hopes that they MIGHT use their savings to create jobs.

 

The obvious answer is that supply-side (aka trickle down) economics was never meant to be anything more than an excuse to reward wealthy supporters of the party.

 

Wasn’t there a red flag that popped up to you – why didn’t they call it “flow-down” instead of “trickle-down”? It was never intended to trickle down.

 

After 28 years, we are going to have to pay the price for the failed economic policies that the Republicans have perpetrated on us (and yes there were Democrats that were lured along too) – but it has been, and was from the start, to shift the tax burden to those least able to bear the strain. We encourage financial profits over real economic growth, ended usury laws, relaxed regulation of the financial institutions, permitted ‘no bid’ contracts that lined pockets of a few with tax payer money, and even relaxed consumer protection. In short, we have become an economy that feeds on our own (especially the less sophisticated and economically weak) -- which is tantamount to being a cannibalistic society. This at a time when China, who has more people in their middle class even now than we have people -- and they want to double and even triple that number. Why is that? It's because a strong middle class are consumers. . . and what does that lead to?

 

Regulation is only needed when there exists temptation for corporations or individuals to take short cuts to profits – at the expense of others.

 

The “class warfare" or "redistribution", as you put, started 28 years ago and the results are that our economy is in the tank, we owe the Communists over a trillion dollars, 1% of our population owns close to 40% of our entire wealth – more than double any other industrial nation. We have the worst savings of any industrialized nation (which makes it difficult to make it through the ups and down cycles) and the people that MAKE OUR ECONOMY GO (through consumerism) aren’t able to keep it up.

 

Now if you want to attempt to prove that trickle down works – have at it – as no one –even economists have been able do so so far.

Please go back and show me the post where I propose trickle down.

[methos]

You're forgoing the important principal of "All Things Equal". Whether investment declined or increased isn't important, what's important is whether the policy's impact was positive or negative. Investment very well could have declined, if the decline was less than otherwise would have happened, it succeeded, and there's no reason why it shouldn't have. Even if the investment was 100% off shore as the increase in global productivity would lead to an increase in productivity at home resulting from more trade and more efficient utilization of resources worldwide.

 

If you'd rather see taxes raised, and the revenue used for a social safety net and stabilization policy, that's fine, but recognize what you forgo. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no right policy, only a right policy for a desired outcome.

 

Whether investment increased or not is the whole point, or otherwise, it's just a tax break for the top tier at the expense of the remaining 95 percent.

 

In regards to your premise that it all equals out due to more global productivity, how so? How does that benefit this country? Last time I checked our current account deficit was staggering, unemployment was soaring, the National Debt had doubled under Bush, and real incomes have declined.

 

The only ones that benefit are the multinationals, the ones transporting the wealth abroad with the blessings of our government. If this country declines, it really does not affect them due to a more global base, but how does that philosophy benefit the vast majority of American's, it does not.

 

It's not about redistributing wealth, it's about common sense. How do building thousands of factories in China benefit this country? Very few industries benefit from exportation, and most of those are service related. Sure, thanks to reckless spending the dollar has declined, but our trading partners manipulate their currencies, so it has little effect outside of Europe and more expensive petrol.

[Len_A]

A minor in economics? It must have been very minor or you have forgotten basic economics. Please tell me how Britney Spears makes, as you say, too much money? Is there a law that says she has to make that much? Athletes in free agency are in fact the definition of a free market. The highest bidder wins, and you help pay for it when you go to a Tiger's or Lion's game. If you don't go, someone else will. You or I may not see the value, but someone does. Why do you think Boston and NY have such great teams, because they sellout which enables them to have higher payrolls which equals superstars.

I know you must understand these basic concepts. But I think with your current unfortunate circumstance of being unemployed had jaded your view of what is fair.

By graguated tax system you mean the more you make the higher % you pay. Then tell me what is the incentive to maximize your earning, to pay more taxes than people who don't?

Tigers had a hell of a pay roll this year too - Sports Illustrated picked them in the preseason to go all the way. They've been inconsistent. And I still hate the Yankees (grin). How do I define how someone like Britney Spears, whom I don't care for as an artist, or a Harrison Ford, Ben Affleck, Bridget Moynahan, Matt Damon, or Gretchen Mol, all whom I like (watched a few Tom Clancy movies and the movie Rounders on DVD this past week) are over paid? What, are they cardiac or brain surgeon's? Did they pilot the space shuttle? No, they're entertainers. And even the ones I like, I think are vastly overpaid. Hell, I saw Criss Angel do his magic up close at the Luxor last year (I'm a big fan, as is my wife) and I think he's over paid. Give me a break. Because the "free market" determines what their supposed worth is, doesn't mean I actually think they're worth that much. Much of their "market demand" is as much a function of advertising and marketing, much in the same way little kids are influenced by TV commercials to hound Mommy & Daddy for Coco Puffs. Because our respective idiot neighbors perceive value in some rock star or sports star doesn't mean their intrinsic value is actually that high.

 

And I was this jaded when my income was close to six figures a year. A graduated income tax has never, ever been proven to be a discouragement or disincentive. People will bitch about it, but there has never been proof of it being a disincentive.

 

 

It's not "trickle down", it's free market economics. Why do you want to penalize people for being wealthy, who's worked hard, got a good education and made a comfortable life for himself and family. You cite movie stars and athletes, that's the free market at work.

Maybe the conservatives ought to go back and read the Bible.

From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

Luke 12:48. Go look it up. Edited September 7, 2008 by Len_A

[methos]

Floyd, Floyd, Floyd. You are one gullible fool. You still believe that “trickle down” economics actually has ever, or even more important . . . was ever INTENDED to work.

 

It was nothing more than a trojan horse that was used to get approval for the huge tax cuts to the rich. You need to read up on David Stockman (Reagan’s budget director). Apparently you never read Reagan approved biographic either. Reagan didn’t give two shits for the common American. What he was all about was helping his wealthy friends. Maybe a simplistic explanation provided here http://rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm might help to understand.

 

Basically, according to conservatives, we need to provide tax breaks for the rich so that they can spend there money to create jobs.

 

If trickle down is a key tenet of conservative economic strategy, why would you stimulate the economy by giving money to the middle class instead of the rich?

 

In twenty-eight years it still hasn’t appeared to you that there is a method to award (via the tax structure) or give tax breaks to the rich (or anyone) who create jobs (AFTER the fact) --- instead of just blanket tax cuts to the rich. . . in the hopes that they MIGHT use their savings to create jobs.

 

The obvious answer is that supply-side (aka trickle down) economics was never meant to be anything more than an excuse to reward wealthy supporters of the party.

 

Wasn’t there a red flag that popped up to you – why didn’t they call it “flow-down” instead of “trickle-down”? It was never intended to trickle down.

 

After 28 years, we are going to have to pay the price for the failed economic policies that the Republicans have perpetrated on us (and yes there were Democrats that were lured along too) – but it has been, and was from the start, to shift the tax burden to those least able to bear the strain. We encourage financial profits over real economic growth, ended usury laws, relaxed regulation of the financial institutions, permitted ‘no bid’ contracts that lined pockets of a few with tax payer money, and even relaxed consumer protection. In short, we have become an economy that feeds on our own (especially the less sophisticated and economically weak) -- which is tantamount to being a cannibalistic society. This at a time when China, who has more people in their middle class even now than we have people -- and they want to double and even triple that number. Why is that? It's because a strong middle class are consumers. . . and what does that lead to?

 

Regulation is only needed when there exists temptation for corporations or individuals to take short cuts to profits – at the expense of others.

 

The “class warfare" or "redistribution", as you put, started 28 years ago and the results are that our economy is in the tank, we owe the Communists over a trillion dollars, 1% of our population owns close to 40% of our entire wealth – more than double any other industrial nation. We have the worst savings of any industrialized nation (which makes it difficult to make it through the ups and down cycles) and the people that MAKE OUR ECONOMY GO (through consumerism) aren’t able to keep it up.

 

Now if you want to attempt to prove that trickle down works – have at it – as no one –even economists have been able do so so far.

 

 

Great post !

 

<methos <--claps>

[Mark B. Morrow]

Who decides you disproportionately benefit? There are small businesses ( sub s ) that file their business taxes on a 1040, Obama's tax plan will unjustly pentalize them. Small businesses provide most of the jobs in the US. So you want to tax them more?

 

 

I deal with and create Sub-chapter S corporations for my clients. The purpose of S-corps is to pass through the profit to the owners and avoid the double taxation of income as corporate profit and again as dividends. The Expenses incurred by the corporation are deducted first. Thus, S-Copr profit would have to exceed $250,000 to an individual owner before the increased tax proposed by Obama would kick in. At present none of my clients fall into this catagory.

 

My question for you is, in a time where our troops are making sacrifices for lower middle class pay, why shouldn't those at the very top of the economic ladder make a small, by proportion, sacrifice to help their country avoid increasing deficits?

 

W's tax cuts have disproportionately benefited those in the top .05%

[Len_A]

I deal with and create Sub-chapter S corporations for my clients. The purpose of S-corps is to pass through the profit to the owners and avoid the double taxation of income as corporate profit and again as dividends. The Expenses incurred by the corporation are deducted first. Thus, S-Copr profit would have to exceed $250,000 to an individual owner before the increased tax proposed by Obama would kick in. At present none of my clients fall into this catagory.

 

My question for you is, in a time where our troops are making sacrifices for lower middle class pay, why shouldn't those at the very top of the economic ladder make a small, by proportion, sacrifice to help their country avoid increasing deficits?

 

W's tax cuts have disproportionately benefited those in the top .05%

Very good answer, and well said.

[Mark B. Morrow]

You may want to read the links you provided. What she did has been in place in Alaska since 1982. That is much different than just arbitrarly raises taxes no matter where the oil is coming from. And come on, truthdig, why not try to find something a little less bias.

 

 

I did read them before posting them. Palin raised the taxes because of the windfall profits the oil industry has earned due to the run up of the price of oil. She passed that tax on to the citizens of Alaska. If that is not a redistribution of waelth what would you call it?

 

By the way exactly what statistics in the Truthdig article are wrong?

[Floyd Lawson]

I deal with and create Sub-chapter S corporations for my clients. The purpose of S-corps is to pass through the profit to the owners and avoid the double taxation of income as corporate profit and again as dividends. The Expenses incurred by the corporation are deducted first. Thus, S-Copr profit would have to exceed $250,000 to an individual owner before the increased tax proposed by Obama would kick in. At present none of my clients fall into this catagory.

 

My question for you is, in a time where our troops are making sacrifices for lower middle class pay, why shouldn't those at the very top of the economic ladder make a small, by proportion, sacrifice to help their country avoid increasing deficits?

 

W's tax cuts have disproportionately benefited those in the top .05%

As a lawyer do you help your clients avoid paying too much in tazes? Does anyone ever come in a say I want to pay as much as possible?

[V8 Ford]

Free agency has far more to do with athletes salaries than their unions. In case you haven't noticed, it's the team owners that are bidding the salaries, one athlete at a time. In fact, company boards of directors are doing the same thing with CEO's salaries.

I've seen professional sports used as a classic example of monopsoistic employment, with unionized labor causing an increase in employment and salaries. I've also seen the NFLPA criticized for being responsible for the high salaries of high draft picks, but I suppose you're right about free agency introducing free market into Pro sports. Still, the Toronto Maple Leaves and Detroit Lions of the corporate world, that "draft" poorly and overpay free agents to compensate will do just as badly as those teams do in their. Just as the free agents they sign that underperforms won't get another high paying contract.

 

You're arguing equality (and whatever else you want) as a rebuttal to liberty and efficiency (I'm only using it in this order since I don't know who started it). They're mutually exclusive goals with mutually exclusive policy, which is why political threads always run on ad nauseum. Vote for what you want, don't criticize others for not holding the same priorities.

 

If trickle down is a key tenet of conservative economic strategy, why would you stimulate the economy by giving money to the middle class instead of the rich?

That's because it wasn't intended as an economic stimulant. It was designed as an investment stimulant, to promote long term growth. Again, mutually exclusive goals, mutually exclusive policy, different parties...

 

Also, the tax cut was across the board, not just for the top x% as seems to be the common misconception.

Edited September 7, 2008 by V8 Ford

[mulewright]

I doubt that I'm the only one who wants to hear what he proposes. You know it's going to come up in the debates.

 

What did Obama propose? the only thing I heard is he will "supersize" government and then you're supposed to believe someone else will pay for it.

 

Obama trotted out the some old Democratic rhetoric that they been saying for years, his speech could have been given by Jimmy Carter.

 

McCain promised to do the one thing that can change our economy in Michigan... get American sources of energy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil and unlike Obama, he stands a good chance of making it happen. Obama won't be able to drill because the Dems are completely beholden to the enviromental lobby, he won't be able to build new nuclear powerplants for the same reason. Without those two things the US auto industry won't survive. Either one should be able to get CNG use up but there's a downside there ... home heating prices will go up. Obama's tax the rich, tax the big corporations tax plan guarantee's the cost of capital will go up further putting a hurt on US industries. We're having some problems with the economy but we're not in nearly as desparate a situation as the Obama camp would have you believe. Unemployment is 6.1%, lower than the whole time Carter was in office in fact it's lower than the average rate in each of the last 4 decades. It's also a rate that the countries Obama would like us to emulate would envy, like France... they're thrilled that theirs is down to 7% since they threw out the socialists, it usually runs about 10%. sheeze....

[Mark B. Morrow]

Compare For Yourself how the McCain and Obama Tax plans would affect tax payers as determined by The Tax Policy Center.

 

 

Affects of John McCain Tax Plan (Average change in Federal Tax)

 

Bottom 20% -$20

Second 20% -$123

Middle 20% -$282

Fourth 20% -$512

Top 20% -$2826

Top 1% -$31,628

Top 0.1% -$190,653

 

Affects of Barack Obama Tax Plan (Average Change in Federal Tax)

 

Bottom 20% -$617

Second 20% -$959

Middle 20% -$969

Fourth 20% -$753

Top 20% +$7748

Top 1% +$133,715

Top 0.1% +$789,241

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publicati...

2 months ago

Additional Details

2 months ago

 

In the 1950s the top marginal Tax rate-on Income over $400,000 was 91%.

JFK lowered it to 70% in the 1960s.

The 1950s and 1960s saw the greatest increase in size of the Middle Class.

 

The Top Rate fell to 28% under Reagan, 39% under Clinton and is now 35% under Bush.

The current Economic Inequality in the United States is second only to Brazil and is in line with the U.S. Economic Inequality of 1929.

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/...

[methos]

McCain promised to do the one thing that can change our economy in Michigan... get American sources of energy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil and unlike Obama, he stands a good chance of making it happen. Obama won't be able to drill because the Dems are completely beholden to the enviromental lobby, he won't be able to build new nuclear powerplants for the same reason. Without those two things the US auto industry won't survive. Either one should be able to get CNG use up but there's a downside there ... home heating prices will go up. Obama's tax the rich, tax the big corporations tax plan guarantee's the cost of capital will go up further putting a hurt on US industries. We're having some problems with the economy but we're not in nearly as desparate a situation as the Obama camp would have you believe. Unemployment is 6.1%, lower than the whole time Carter was in office in fact it's lower than the average rate in each of the last 4 decades. It's also a rate that the countries Obama would like us to emulate would envy, like France... they're thrilled that theirs is down to 7% since they threw out the socialists, it usually runs about 10%. sheeze....

 

 

First, Democratic leaders including Obama have clearly stated that offshore drilling can happen if it's part of a broader package. However, contrary to what McCain has said, the EIA said it would take a decade minimum to see any impact on the market, and over two decades before the potential is fully realized. In other words, it means nothing short term.

 

Democrats want more royalties and less tax breaks to the oil companies; investing the money in alternative energy programs.

 

Second, if you think the domestic auto industry can survive solely on McCain's proposals thus far, you are dreaming. They need help now or their likely toast. They sure as hell can't afford to wait a decade for gas to come down a dime a gallon, and I am being generous with that estimate.

 

Finally, they need money now, and lots of it to change over to a more economical fleet. They can't borrow that much, even if they could afford the interest rates, and they can't. It's even doubtful they could find the lenders. Capital is tight, who wants to dump tens of billions into a failing industry with doubtful prospects.

 

Hence, the reasoning the auto execs have been at the conventions throwing banquets, and have opened up their coffers to their lobbying firms in hopes of getting a favorable resolution on their requests for fifty billion in loans via the recent provisions in the latest energy bill. Obama has already supported their requests, but McCain has not, at least not with any specificity. If they can't get the support now with two election swing states on the line, Michigan and Ohio, what's the chances McCain will go for it afterwards.

 

I don’t get it, they say forty percent of union workers voted for Bush last election, and while they don’t expect as much this time around for McBush, they still expect a large percentage. It’s always surprising to see Republican or Libertarian union members. I only wonder just how arrogant they’re going to be in the free-cheese line. I guess if McBush wins, I won’t have long to wonder.

[V8 Ford]

Compare For Yourself how the McCain and Obama Tax plans would affect tax payers as determined by The Tax Policy Center.

I'd be interested to see if they have true income changes, which take into account adjusted costs of living due to increased corporate taxes, etc and changes in welfare benefits.

Edited September 7, 2008 by V8 Ford

[Mark B. Morrow]

What did Obama propose? the only thing I heard is he will "supersize" government and then you're supposed to believe someone else will pay for it.

 

Why don't you look at what Obama has proposed?

 

Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.

 

These vehicles can get up to 150 miles per gallon. Barack Obama believes we should work to ensure these cars are built here in America, instead of factories overseas.

 

Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.

 

Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

 

Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to reduce the carbon in our fuels 10 percent by 2020. Obama will also require 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels to be phased into our fuel supply by 2030.

 

A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.

 

Obama will require oil companies to develop the 68 million acres of land (over 40 million of which are offshore) which they have already leased and are not drilling on.

 

Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.

 

An Obama administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.

 

Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.

 

Obama’s Department of Energy will enter into public private partnerships to develop five “first-of-a-kind” commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology.

 

Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.

 

As president, Obama will work with stakeholders to facilitate construction of the pipeline. Not only is this pipeline critical to our energy security, it will create thousands of new jobs.

 

 

Obama trotted out the some old Democratic rhetoric that they been saying for years, his speech could have been given by Jimmy Carter.

 

McCain promised to do the one thing that can change our economy in Michigan... get American sources of energy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil and unlike Obama, he stands a good chance of making it happen. Obama won't be able to drill because the Dems are completely beholden to the enviromental lobby, he won't be able to build new nuclear powerplants for the same reason. Without those two things the US auto industry won't survive. Either one should be able to get CNG use up but there's a downside there ... home heating prices will go up.

 

Obama on nuclear power:

 

 

McCain on nuclear power:

 

 

Not much difference except McCain seems to gloss over the waste issue.

 

 

Obama's tax the rich, tax the big corporations tax plan guarantee's the cost of capital will go up further putting a hurt on US industries.

 

The cost of capital is affected more so by our balooning deficit and the government's borrowing money to finance the war. The U.S is competing for capital due to Bush's tax policy. Cutting middle class taxes would stimulate the economy and create jobs far more efficiently than keeping taxes low for the wealthy inder the current Bush tax scheme. The very rich don't invest in job creating enterprises as they did 50 years ago. Comodities speculation, overseas investments, and hedge funds simply don't create many jobs.

 

We're having some problems with the economy but we're not in nearly as desparate a situation as the Obama camp would have you believe. Unemployment is 6.1%, lower than the whole time Carter was in office in fact it's lower than the average rate in each of the last 4 decades.

 

The population has increased since the Carter years and more of the unemployment is in the middle class. The better comparison would be the Clinton years where the unemployment rate was low and the middle class was growing.

 

 

It's also a rate that the countries Obama would like us to emulate would envy, like France... they're thrilled that theirs is down to 7% since they threw out the socialists, it usually runs about 10%. sheeze....

 

Citation to where Obama has said he wants to emulate France's enonomy? Rush Limbaugh doesn't count.

Edited September 7, 2008 by Mark B. Morrow

[mulewright]

Floyd, Floyd, Floyd. You are one gullible fool. You still believe that “trickle down” economics actually has ever, or even more important . . . was ever INTENDED to work.

 

It was nothing more than a trojan horse that was used to get approval for the huge tax cuts to the rich. You need to read up on David Stockman (Reagan’s budget director). Apparently you never read Reagan approved biographic either. Reagan didn’t give two shits for the common American. What he was all about was helping his wealthy friends. Maybe a simplistic explanation provided here http://rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm might help to understand.

 

Basically, according to conservatives, we need to provide tax breaks for the rich so that they can spend there money to create jobs.

 

If trickle down is a key tenet of conservative economic strategy, why would you stimulate the economy by giving money to the middle class instead of the rich?

 

In twenty-eight years it still hasn’t appeared to you that there is a method to award (via the tax structure) or give tax breaks to the rich (or anyone) who create jobs (AFTER the fact) --- instead of just blanket tax cuts to the rich. . . in the hopes that they MIGHT use their savings to create jobs.

 

The obvious answer is that supply-side (aka trickle down) economics was never meant to be anything more than an excuse to reward wealthy supporters of the party.

 

Wasn’t there a red flag that popped up to you – why didn’t they call it “flow-down” instead of “trickle-down”? It was never intended to trickle down.

 

After 28 years, we are going to have to pay the price for the failed economic policies that the Republicans have perpetrated on us (and yes there were Democrats that were lured along too) – but it has been, and was from the start, to shift the tax burden to those least able to bear the strain. We encourage financial profits over real economic growth, ended usury laws, relaxed regulation of the financial institutions, permitted ‘no bid’ contracts that lined pockets of a few with tax payer money, and even relaxed consumer protection. In short, we have become an economy that feeds on our own (especially the less sophisticated and economically weak) -- which is tantamount to being a cannibalistic society. This at a time when China, who has more people in their middle class even now than we have people -- and they want to double and even triple that number. Why is that? It's because a strong middle class are consumers. . . and what does that lead to?

 

Regulation is only needed when there exists temptation for corporations or individuals to take short cuts to profits – at the expense of others.

 

The “class warfare" or "redistribution", as you put, started 28 years ago and the results are that our economy is in the tank, we owe the Communists over a trillion dollars, 1% of our population owns close to 40% of our entire wealth – more than double any other industrial nation. We have the worst savings of any industrialized nation (which makes it difficult to make it through the ups and down cycles) and the people that MAKE OUR ECONOMY GO (through consumerism) aren’t able to keep it up.

 

Now if you want to attempt to prove that trickle down works – have at it – as no one –even economists have been able do so so far.

Pay particular attention to the % of taxes paid by the lowest 50% and contrast it to todays rate.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/r...ct/reagtxct.htm

Edited September 7, 2008 by mulewright