McBush Economics

[RunInRed 16,528]

[BamaGrad03 0]

More tax cuts for the wealthiest americans = translation every american who paid taxes this year.

This video was funny.

[RunInRed 16,528]

More tax cuts for the wealthiest americans = translation every american who paid taxes this year.

This video was funny.

No, you do not understand. Obama has committed not to raise taxes on any one making less than 250k. And even further, he has proposed additional tax cuts through an earned income credit and elimination of taxes all together on seniors making less than 50k. Still further he has proposed healthcare subsidies and higher education subsidies, all of which are paid for without raising taxes on those making less than 250k. It's about priorities that Bush never understood and it looks like McCain does not either.

Next time, it would be great if you actually tried to debate some factual points instead of spewing the typical right wing propoganda (we can save that job for TM)

[CCTAU 3,355]

It's still Robin Hood economics. You tax the rich, the rich just pass it on to the poor. You people are dense when it comes to this. NOTHING IS FREAKING FREE.

I HAVE NEVER BEEN OFFERED A JOB BY A POOR PERSON.

Not to mention, I would like to work my way up to the 250K or more crowd without being punished when I get there. Key word there...WORK. Dims don't know much about that. Work is only something that should be done to help subsidize our basic right government subsidies.

[Tigermike 3,078]

More tax cuts for the wealthiest americans = translation every american who paid taxes this year.

This video was funny.

No, you do not understand. Obama has committed not to raise taxes on any one making less than 250k. And even further, he has proposed additional tax cuts through an earned income credit and elimination of taxes all together on seniors making less than 50k. Still further he has proposed healthcare subsidies and higher education subsidies, all of which are paid for without raising taxes on those making less than 250k. It's about priorities that Bush never understood and it looks like McCain does not either.

Next time, it would be great if you actually tried to debate some factual points instead of spewing the typical right wing propoganda (we can save that job for TM)

More tax cuts for the wealthiest americans = translation every american who paid taxes this year.

This video was funny.

No, you do not understand. Obama has committed not to raise taxes on any one making less than 250k. And even further, he has proposed further tax cuts through an earned income credit and elimination of taxes all together on seniors making less than 50k. Further he has proposed, healthcare subsidies and higher education subsidies, all of which are paid for without raising taxes on those making less than 250k. It's about priorities that neither McCain or Bush understand.

Next time, it would be great if you actually tried to debate some factual points instead of the typical right wing propoganda (we can save that job for TM)

Got a link for all that?

While you are at it dig up some info (propaganda) to explain Obama's plans to almost double capital gains taxes in his grand plan to redistribute income.

Obama's priority isn’t to raise revenue; it’s to ensure fairness. In order to do that, he will have the government take a bigger share of the gains and redistribute them through social programs to others. The pretense of having more money acts as a veneer for good, old-fashioned redistributionism.

redistributionist

a person who believes in, advocates, or supports income redistribution.

1. The act or process of redistributing.

2. An economic theory or policy that advocates reducing inequalities in the distribution of wealth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redistributionist%20

Obama’s redistributionism on capital gains taxes

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.

And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we’re able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

And you can’t do that for free, and you can’t take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you’re cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.

You know, I believe in the principle that you pay as you go, and you don’t propose tax cuts unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don’t increase spending unless you’re eliminating some spending or you’re finding some new revenue. That’s how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush. That is helping to undermine our economy, and it’s going to change when I’m president of the United States.

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going. I think the biggest problem that we’ve got on Wall Street right now is the fact that we’ve got a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right.

And if we can stabilize that market and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we’ll see stocks do well, and once again I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt.

Transcript from The NYTIMES

And his example shows his bias. He talks about billionaires paying a different rate than secretaries on income, but that’s purposeful. The idea behind a lower capital gains tax is to encourage risk-taking. The secretary in this parable garners an income at much lower risk because investors have taken a risk in creating her job. When the risk succeeds, it generates much more taxable income across the board. When it doesn’t, the investors lose a lot of money.

If the risk carries a heavier tax burden, less money will go towards investment. People will instead put their money into safer, less risk-intense areas, such as savings or low-yield bonds and commodities such as gold. That will create fewer opportunities for employment, which translates across the board into less revenue for the government as well as a stalled economy. The surest way to start an economic disaster is to increase penalties for investment.

Obama’s blindness on capital gains reveals a hard-Left mindset. He sees investors always profiting and never losing, while the people who work at jobs created by successful investment as victims of this exchange rather than the beneficiaries of it. Obama wants to use the heavy hand of government to take away the rewards of risk from those who invested, and instead redistribute it to those who took no risk to create economic growth. In doing so, he will kill the engine that drives the American economy.

Obama either fails to understand how a free-market economy grows, or simply doesn’t care. Either way, it makes him a dangerous choice for the Presidency.

LINK

[otterinbham 0]

Basically, the man's a clone of George McGovern. But this kind of nonsense is what's going to kill him.

Why? Because of the staggering increase in household wealth over the past 25 years in this country, rate far higher than any other industrialized nation in the world--and a great deal of this wealth can be attributed to what were punitive capital tax rates that prevailed up through the early 80s. Now, people such as Obama have conveniently forgotten all that in a cheap bid to win extra votes for the allegedly bitter middle class.

The problem with that is that household wealth hasn't just benefitted the uberwealthy or even the upper middle class. People of all walks pretty much have accumulated a great deal of wealth on paper through 401ks, equities, home values (Which increased roughly 120% over the past eight years, so a 10% dip is painful in the short term, but not fatal over the long haul). So guess what? Sell a house that you've owned for 15-20 years, and you could get socked with major capital gains (A distinct possibility for middle class people who live in places like California and the Midwest). Suddenly, "tax the plutocrats" rings a little hollow as a campaign slogan, don't you think?

Again, I really wish the Obama people would learn economics. Then we could have a rational discussion of how badly-considered fiscal policy can ravage a country.

[RunInRed 16,528]

I never seen a group of people who make less than 250k sit around and bitch and moan so much about the difference between 35% and 39%. CCTAU is right, nothing is free, including this war at $400M+/day financed on the backs of our children and grandchildren on a credit card that McBush got from China. People can't afford healthcare, we can't make the infrastructure investments we need, our schools are falling apart, we have no energy solutions, SS is insolvent, Medicare is unstainable, the national debt is ever increasing, who knows what our foreign policy requirements will be the next 10-15 years....and on and on. But all you guys can bitch about is a 4% tax differential on those who were blessed to live in a country where making 250k and more is a real opportunity. Truly amazing and quite hypocritical from a crowd who wants to toot their own horn that they gave 10%+ to charities this year...give me a freaking break.

[otterinbham 0]

I never seen a group of people who make less than 250k sit around and bitch and moan so much about the difference between 35% and 39%. CCTAU is right, nothing is free, including this war at $400M+/day financed on the backs of our children and grandchildren on a credit card that McBush got from China. People can't afford healthcare, we can't make the infrastructure investments we need, our schools are falling apart, we have no energy solutions, SS is insolvent, Medicare is unstainable, the national debt is ever increasing, who knows what our foreign policy requirements will be the next 10-15 years....and on and on. But all you guys can bitch about is a 4% tax differential on those who were blessed to live in a country where making 250k and more is a real opportunity. Truly amazing and quite hypocritical from a crowd who wants to toot their own horn that they gave 10%+ to charities this year...give me a freaking break.

First of all, I opposed the war from the get-go. Anybody who has read my posts on this board would know that.

However, what you fail to recognize is that had Bush just kept government spending increases in line with inflation, we would have tax surpluses over the past several years EVEN with the costs incurred in Iraq. However, Bush jacked up government spending in dozens of ways, including the execrable Prescription Drug Act. Yet, you would probably cite that as one of his few accomplishments.

Second, you cite that people can't afford healthcare anymore. The reason, however, has to do with the wholesale intrusion of government into healthcare. Before Medicare and Medicaid, healthcare comprised roughly 5-6% of the GDP. Today, forty years after the Great Society program took effect, the share is closer to 18%. And this is with far greater economies of scale in record keeping, technology, etc. Yet, blue-sky thinkers such as you see no correlation between these two facts. Or, to be more accurate, you want to indulge in wishful thinking.

Social Security is insolvent for a simple reason: It is mathematically unsustainable. What's more, unless you double FICA taxes, it will be mathematically unsustainable. No government fix is going to work short of total and absolute privatization. Or, here's an even better idea: Allow me to invest the money and take the risks. Anything is better than the 2% return the government provides me for the 14% of my paycheck it strips away every year.

Further, even the economists at Berkeley (no friend of conservative economics) have affirmed why it's so important to keep taxes low. In fact, their most recent study shows that every 1% of tax cuts results in a 1.5-3% rise in the national GDP.

Finally, it's pretty evident that you've never owned a business beyond that of a lemonade stand. Because your bizarre statement about people who "bitch and moan so much about the difference between 35% and 39%" shows that you live in an alternative universe to the people who actually take all the risks in this country.

Why? Because after paying the employees, the taxes, the rent, the benefits, the equipment, the maintenance, and the million other little expenses of running a business, the average company enjoys a net profit of roughly 5-8%. With retailers, it can be as little as 3%. What's more, most of that profit never makes it into the pockets of the business owners. While some gets dividended out, the great majority of net profit is plowed back into buying equipment, paying employees and reducing debt. So, more times than not, a company owner is taxed for profits that never make it into his bank account.

Yet you blithely talk about a 4% difference in tax rates as if it were small potatoes. Truth be told, that's a company's entire profit you're nonchalantly handing over to the goons in Washington for another orgy of pork barrel spending.

[Auburn85 434]

More tax cuts for the wealthiest americans = translation every american who paid taxes this year.

This video was funny.

No, you do not understand. Obama has committed not to raise taxes on any one making less than 250k. And even further, he has proposed additional tax cuts through an earned income credit and elimination of taxes all together on seniors making less than 50k. Still further he has proposed healthcare subsidies and higher education subsidies, all of which are paid for without raising taxes on those making less than 250k. It's about priorities that Bush never understood and it looks like McCain does not either.

Next time, it would be great if you actually tried to debate some factual points instead of spewing the typical right wing propoganda (we can save that job for TM)

what about raising the capital gains tax?

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/tips/2001...a2.asp?caret=1d

15-percent rate

This most widely paid capital gains tax rate applies to long-term investments by individuals in the 25-percent or higher tax brackets. When you hear "lower capital gains rate," it generally means this level, because there are few investors with incomes low enough to qualify solely for the 5-percent rate.

people who are in the 25% income tax rate and are filing as "head of household" make $42,650-$110,100.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commer...ment-taxes.html

As part of his "Tax Fairness for the Middle Class" plan, Barack Obama is in favor of nearly doubling the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to 28 percent.

is this the same 15% rate he wants to raise to 28%? If it is, Obama is raising taxes on those making under $250k.

i posted this nearly verbatim in another thread.

[BamaGrad03 0]

More tax cuts for the wealthiest americans = translation every american who paid taxes this year.

This video was funny.

No, you do not understand. Obama has committed not to raise taxes on any one making less than 250k. And even further, he has proposed additional tax cuts through an earned income credit and elimination of taxes all together on seniors making less than 50k. Still further he has proposed healthcare subsidies and higher education subsidies, all of which are paid for without raising taxes on those making less than 250k. It's about priorities that Bush never understood and it looks like McCain does not either.

Next time, it would be great if you actually tried to debate some factual points instead of spewing the typical right wing propoganda (we can save that job for TM)

Ironic coming from the king of spewing propoganda. Anytime you get cornered, instead of providing facts you throw out some stereotypical republican label on us and start your pitty party.

Obama said "the same economic plan as bush...helping the wealthy"...the only thing that McCain has said he'd do the SAME was keep the stimulus package (that benefits EVERYONE WHO PAYS TAXES) in place. Everyone wants to throw out some crap line about "only the rich benefit when republicans are in control"...but they are taking that $600 check to the bank, not caring where it came from.

Obama is going to repeal said tax cut for the tax payers of America.

[Auburn85 434]

what i hate too is Clinton and Obama talk as if the wealthy, top 1%, warren buffet, got a tax cut and rarely if ever mention that Bush lowered taxes on EVERYONE

if someone makes $1 million a year, of course in dollars, you tax break is going to be bigger than someone who makes $40k a year.

Federal income taxes were lowered by roughly 4%. What are we to do? Give the same tax break that the $1 million earner got to the $40k earner?

4% of $1 million is $40k. So we should give the person making $40k... $40k.

[AURaptor 1,128]

McCain is right, regardless of the the Obama orc class would have us believe. It's Obama who is living in fantasy land, who'd raise taxes to spite the country. What a clueless moron. Why do I say " moron " ? Because Charlie Gibson got Obama to ADMIT that even if it raised less revenue, that raising the cap gains tax rate would be good because some folks having too much $$ isn't.........

wait for it.....

it isn't FAIR !!

So, let me see if I get this straight. Attacking successful people by allowing them to keep less of their own $$ and forcing them to give it to the Government is " good " , even if it yields the Government less overall $$ why ?

Good gravy, what a utter socialist SOB Obama is.

:middlefinger: