Obama: Raise Taxes, Penalize Business

[Rio Rebel]

McCain: Lower taxes for some, cut domestic spending, and then spend all that and more on military.

Your choice, I guess.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
They may not have said it, but it was implied. Pulling the troops out immediately would be the only way to end the cost of the war people in this thread were advocating.

And they prefer to be called Dried Stalk-Americans.

Who implied it? I've never heard of this term "Dried Stalk-Americans."
No major party candidate running for President this year (that I am aware of) except Ron Paul argued for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Look, if you're going to lie, I'm going to call you on it.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
[Those stimulus checks are just borrowing time. If they were serious about stimulating the economy. They would cut 50-100 billion in spending permantly.

Getting out of Iraq would achieve that.

Yes it would. Now lets stop passing spending bills and bring them home.

Now we're talking. Bringing our troops home would create a massive economic stimulus to the domestic economy. And not simply from the reduction in foreign and defense spending, but from the productivity of getting those soldiers back here working and spending at home.

It also has the added benefit of being totally unrealistic. You cannot simply pull all the troops out of Iraq as if they were never there. The civil war/chaos that would ensue would further destabilize the region and only make matters worse when it comes to the price of oil.

No one is talking about a sudden pull-out that would destabilize the region, but thanks for the straw man.

They may not have said it, but it was implied. Pulling the troops out immediately would be the only way to end the cost of the war people in this thread were advocating.

And they prefer to be called Dried Stalk-Americans.

Who implied it? I've never heard of this term "Dried Stalk-Americans."
No major party candidate running for President this year (that I am aware of) except Ron Paul argued for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Look, if you're going to lie, I'm going to call you on it.

Did I ever mention a political candidate? Noooooooooooooooooo. RIF.

When someone in this thread says to bring the troops back in order to save 50-100 billion it says to me they want them out of there immediately so that the money can be saved here in the now.

 

[shiner]

and don't call after 4...I had to get up early and need a nap.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Did I ever mention a political candidate? Noooooooooooooooooo. RIF.

When someone in this thread says to bring the troops back in order to save 50-100 billion it says to me they want them out of there immediately so that the money can be saved here in the now.

Did that someone say immediate? No.
Was that discussion not hypothetical in regards to the benefit it would provide the domestic economy? Yes.

The adults are talking here. Try to follow, eh?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: yllus
You folks should be happy that you're actually getting a presidential candidate who's not feeding you utter BS on the fiscal front. It would be oh-so-easy for him to promise to keep the cuts in place - to hell with the future, he wants to get elected and maintain a high popularity rating. He would not have been the first or last president to have done so.

Being fed utter BS on the fiscal front is what the Republicans always want. A conservative with even a understanding of economics is known as libertarian.

I'm not big on a capital gains tax, nor a oil profits windfall tax. But everyone is going to end up paying for the excesses of the last eight years either starting immediately or relatively soon as debt/interest on debt starts playing a bigger role in your federal budget. DHS, I imagine, is too much a third rail for him to dare risk cutting within. No easy answers for what lies ahead.

Exactly. I liken this situation to when GHW Bush had to break his "Read my lips" campaign promise. He had no choice because of the fiscal excesses of the Reagan administration. Likewise, the next President will have no choice due to the irresponsibility of GW Bush's administration.

A possible compromise might be taking them out of frontline roles starting in 2010 or so. Let them be on call for the regular Iraqi army, but based away from populated areas. Ideally the Iraqis would get more time, but reality dictates that Americans back home aren't going to tolerate this situation for much longer.

Shiner was just spewing straw man. I don't know anyone who has argued for immediate withdrawal from the region for exactly this reason that we have to clean up the mess first.

The Obama timeline on withdrawing from Iraq has always been 18 months, coinciding with a redeployment into Afghanistan.

If you haven't read Alan Greenspan's "The Age of Turbulence" yet, I highly recommend doing so immediately. Greenspan's not one to come out and lavish praise on anyone, but he was very specific in singling out Bill Clinton for being a stickler for budgetary discipline, and very specific in singling out George W. Bush for his propensity for dismissing level-headed economic advice in favour of someone who would say what he wanted to hear.

Interesting stuff from a guy who's been familiar with the innards of the White House starting from the first Nixon administration, not to mention a lifelong Republican and one-time moral student of Ayn Rand. I don't know if he realized it himself, but every Republican administration he talks about ends up being spendthrift, and every Democratic one ends up doing the dirty work of being disciplined in the fiscal sense. His anecdotes about attempting to talk reason one-on-one with Reagan are hysterical (in a dry Greenspan-y way). 😛

Edit: Er, I should do something people rarely do and say that H.W. Bush was an exception to this rule. Guy did almost everything right, including fighting a war the way they should be fought (with far more forces in theatre than needed, as opposed to on the cheap). Can't fight the public's want for change, though.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Did I ever mention a political candidate? Noooooooooooooooooo. RIF.

When someone in this thread says to bring the troops back in order to save 50-100 billion it says to me they want them out of there immediately so that the money can be saved here in the now.

Did that someone mention a timeline? No.
Was that discussion not hypothetical in regards to the benefit it would provide the domestic economy. Yes.

The adults are talking here. Try to follow, eh?

As I said, it was implied. How?

Red Dawn - "Getting out of Iraq would achieve that."

Genx87- "Yes it would. Now lets stop passing spending bills and bring them home."

Cutting off the funding for the troops would cause them to have to leave country immediately. I can't make it any more clear than that for you. I suppose I could try to find some crayons and draw you a picture if you don't understand the plain and simple English.

I'll get back to you after my nap....and possibly some Mario Kart.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: yllus
If you haven't read Alan Greenspan's "The Age of Turbulence" yet, I highly recommend doing so immediately. Greenspan's not one to come out and lavish praise on anyone, but he was very specific in singling out Bill Clinton for being a stickler for budgetary discipline, and very specific in singling out George W. Bush for his propensity for dismissing level-headed economic advice in favour of someone who would say what he wanted to hear.

Interesting stuff from a guy who's been familiar with the innards of the White House starting from the first Nixon administration, not to mention a lifelong Republican and one-time moral student of Ayn Rand. I don't know if he realized it himself, but every Republican administration he talks about ends up being spendthrift, and every Democratic one ends up doing the dirty work of being disciplined in the fiscal sense. His anecdotes about attempting to talk reason one-on-one with Reagan are hysterical (in a dry Greenspan-y way). 😛

Edit: Er, I should do something people rarely do and say that H.W. Bush was an exception to this rule. Guy did almost everything right, including fighting a war the way they should be fought (with far more forces in theatre than needed, as opposed to on the cheap). Can't fight the public's want for change, though.

Sounds like a great read, thanks.

And I agree that hindsight has been rightfully very favorable to GHW Bush. He did what he had to do, even when he took a lot of heat for it (usually from his own party too) at the time.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Or, to be more accurate, taxing capital gains equitably with earned income will have a minuscule impact on a huge chunk of the middle class (wage earners) and a significant impact on the very wealthy.

because certainly the middle class doesn't have 401(k)s!

He didn't say that, he said that the wealthy will be affected > than middle class, which = correct.

Actually, that's probably incorrect. The wealthy have a lower incentive to realize their wealth for income. The 'middle class' has to realize a disproportionately higher % of wealth. Since capital gains only taxes REALIZED wealth, the 'wealthy' usually roll their gains back into additional wealth-generating vehicles while the 'middle class' does not.

This also ignores the fact that the 'wealthy' are better able to navigate the unnecessarily complex American tax laws than the 'middle class', which causes them to pay an even more disproportionately small % of wealth.

However, if you think that raising rates will even out the proportion, I have this friend in Nigeria who needs some help sending money to the US......

You are assuming that most middle class families sell their stocks/bonds more frequently than the wealthy, which is probably correct because obviously the middle class constitutes a much larger percentage of people in this country vice wealthy. However, the way CGT is supposed to work is that the net dollars contributed will be larger from the wealthy, so the CGT still works to a certain degree but yes the middle class pays more % wise. Hopefully Obama will correct this to include ALL wealth, including securities you are holding.

Yes, a higher percentage of wealthy vice middle class will undoubtedly make use of tax shelters moreso because: a) They can afford better advice and again, b) the middle class is proportionately much larger than the wealthy. Same numbers game with percent as above.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I like O but I have to admit I'm not really liking what he is saying economically. It is not geling with me. He wants to drop another $50B now to stimulate the economy which is a) Not going to work and b) just a terrible idea; do we really need yet more national debt here?

Those stimulus checks are just borrowing time. If they were serious about stimulating the economy. They would cut 50-100 billion in spending permantly so they wouldnt have to keep raising taxes or praying for super economic growth to overcome the deficits while borrowing out the ass.

I don't think many people dispute this. The problem IMO is agreeing on what cuts to be made, with the Republican "conservatives" stubbornly clinging to the one thing that most obviously should be cut, the War and Nation Building in Iraq, while at the same clamoring that the cuts should be in the last place they should be made at this time, which is in domestic public and infrastructure re-investment. America should be working, not fighting. As long as we keep fighting that needless war, taxes will go up, borrowing will go up, inflation will go up, interest rates will go up, and the economy will continue to slow as wealth leaves the economy that should have been used domestically.

So... um... please don't feed me the "serious about stimulating the economy" rhetoric.

Forget Iraq, the impending Medicare deficit makes Iraq look like chump change.

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Why oh why can we not just cut government spending??????

SLASH AND BURN!!!

Agreed...Let's start with defense spending.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Why oh why can we not just cut government spending??????

SLASH AND BURN!!!

Why not do both? That's how we ended up with a surplus in the late 90s.

We didnt have a surplus due to cutbacks in spending. The nation budget has not decreased from one year to the next since 1932.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic
No one is talking about a sudden pull-out that would destabilize the region, but thanks for the straw man.

I am.

What are we gaining being in Iraq?

Did we get the oil? Apparently not

I say move the entire military into Iran.

That's apparently where the oil is and they had a very vocal Saddam II there.

That was enough to invade Iraq, certainly should be more than enough to invade Iran.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
No one is talking about a sudden pull-out that would destabilize the region, but thanks for the straw man.

I am.

What are we gaining being in Iraq?

Did we get the oil? Apparently not

I say move the entire military into Iran.

That's apparently where the oil is and they had a very vocal Saddam II there.

That was enough to invade Iraq, certainly should be more than enough to invade Iran.

I concur with this course of action. The probability of it turning into a quagmire of epic proportions has got to be pretty small. It's not like we've ever done anything similar.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
We didnt have a surplus due to cutbacks in spending. The nation budget has not decreased from one year to the next since 1932.

Actually, that's not true. The federal budget did see year-over-year spending decreases in Truman's first term following WWII. Along with dramatic decreases in debt % of GDP, a trend which didn't reverse until Nixon. The last Republican President to balance the budget was Eisenhower. The last Democratic President to do so was Clinton.

And while it is true that Clinton never reduced spending year-over-year, he did increase spending at the slowest rate of any modern President.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Carbo
Penalize Big Oil

Wow for supposedly being so smart. That is one dumbass idea.
The only people who will actually feel that are American drivers when the cost is passed along at the pump.

Genx is exactly right. If you tax the product, you're taxing the consumer. It's that simple.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
[Those stimulus checks are just borrowing time. If they were serious about stimulating the economy. They would cut 50-100 billion in spending permantly.

Getting out of Iraq would achieve that.

Yes it would. Now lets stop passing spending bills and bring them home.

Now we're talking. Bringing our troops home would create a massive economic stimulus to the domestic economy. And not simply from the reduction in foreign and defense spending, but from the productivity of getting those soldiers back here working and spending at home.

It also has the added benefit of being totally unrealistic. You cannot simply pull all the troops out of Iraq as if they were never there. The civil war/chaos that would ensue would further destabilize the region and only make matters worse when it comes to the price of oil.

No one is talking about a sudden pull-out that would destabilize the region, but thanks for the straw man.

Yep, absolutely no one is saying that; assuming you've never spent more than 10 seconds reading this forum. :roll:

 

[lupi]

Here's the homepage for Mark Warner's Senate campaign, the ad is mostly about the economy. Notice the main trend discussed in it. Something the O man has totally neglected so far.

Text


It's not like the WSJ has called the BHO economic plan "Nanny State on Steroids". oh wait.....

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: Vic
No one is talking about a sudden pull-out that would destabilize the region, but thanks for the straw man.

Yep, absolutely no one is saying that; assuming you've never spent more than 10 seconds reading this forum. :roll:

Do you ever do anything here besides troll?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I like O but I have to admit I'm not really liking what he is saying economically. It is not geling with me. He wants to drop another $50B now to stimulate the economy which is a) Not going to work and b) just a terrible idea; do we really need yet more national debt here?

Those stimulus checks are just borrowing time. If they were serious about stimulating the economy. They would cut 50-100 billion in spending permantly so they wouldnt have to keep raising taxes or praying for super economic growth to overcome the deficits while borrowing out the ass.

I have an alternative theory.

If they were serious about stimulating the economy, the would've given the stimulus checks only to those at or below the poverty line, for the simple reason that they would immediately spend it.

Among the wealthy, most of the money will go either to pay off debts or simply sit in savings.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Carbo
Penalize Big Oil

Wow for supposedly being so smart. That is one dumbass idea.
The only people who will actually feel that are American drivers when the cost is passed along at the pump.

Genx is exactly right. If you tax the product, you're taxing the consumer. It's that simple.

Uhh, you're not taxing the product, you're taxing the profit.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I like O but I have to admit I'm not really liking what he is saying economically. It is not geling with me. He wants to drop another $50B now to stimulate the economy which is a) Not going to work and b) just a terrible idea; do we really need yet more national debt here?

Those stimulus checks are just borrowing time. If they were serious about stimulating the economy. They would cut 50-100 billion in spending permantly so they wouldnt have to keep raising taxes or praying for super economic growth to overcome the deficits while borrowing out the ass.

I have an alternative theory.

If they were serious about stimulating the economy, the would've given the stimulus checks only to those at or below the poverty line, for the simple reason that they would immediately spend it.

Among the wealthy, most of the money will go either to pay off debts or simply sit in savings.

Why would you want to give tax money to someone who pays zero taxes?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I like O but I have to admit I'm not really liking what he is saying economically. It is not geling with me. He wants to drop another $50B now to stimulate the economy which is a) Not going to work and b) just a terrible idea; do we really need yet more national debt here?

Those stimulus checks are just borrowing time. If they were serious about stimulating the economy. They would cut 50-100 billion in spending permantly so they wouldnt have to keep raising taxes or praying for super economic growth to overcome the deficits while borrowing out the ass.

I have an alternative theory.

If they were serious about stimulating the economy, the would've given the stimulus checks only to those at or below the poverty line, for the simple reason that they would immediately spend it.

Among the wealthy, most of the money will go either to pay off debts or simply sit in savings.

Why would you want to give tax money to someone who pays zero taxes?

In addition the wealthy did not receive any stimulus checks.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Why oh why can we not just cut government spending??????

SLASH AND BURN!!!

Why not do both? That's how we ended up with a surplus in the late 90s.

We didnt have a surplus due to cutbacks in spending. The nation budget has not decreased from one year to the next since 1932.

Bold that, and shout that to the heavens.

The nation budget has not decreased from one year to the next since 1932.

The nation budget has not decreased from one year to the next since 1932.

The nation budget has not decreased from one year to the next since 1932.

The nation budget has not decreased from one year to the next since 1932.

The nation budget has not decreased from one year to the next since 1932.

The nation budget has not decreased from one year to the next since 1932.

The nation budget has not decreased from one year to the next since 1932.

The nation budget has not decreased from one year to the next since 1932.

76 YEARS of unchecked GROWTH

Somebody needs to tell McCain and Obama, it's the SPENDING, stupid.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: lupi
Here's the homepage for Mark Warner's Senate campaign, the ad is mostly about the economy. Notice the main trend discussed in it. Something the O man has totally neglected so far.

Text


It's not like the WSJ has called the BHO economic plan "Nanny State on Steroids". oh wait.....

And it's not like the WSJ would have anything nice to say about anyone that would propose any taxes that hit themselves, their targeted audience or corporate America.

Take what the WSJ's editorial staff has to say with a pound of salt when it comes to a politician's economic plans either in favor of or against.

As for the "Warner" approach to the economy...who here hasn't been saying the same thing? Oh, and if you would go to Obama's website, you would find this:

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington

* Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.

* Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.

* Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.

* Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient: Obama will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. Obama will also increase the efficiency of government programs through better use of technology, stronger management that demands accountability and by leveraging the government's high-volume purchasing power to get lower prices.

* End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program.

Make the Tax System More Fair and Efficient


* End Tax Haven Abuse: Building on his bipartisan work in the Senate, Obama will give the Treasury Department the tools it needs to stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350 billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid.

* Close Special Interest Corporate Loopholes: Obama will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry.

That sounds a lot like what you are praising Warner for. It's a shame that you didn't take the time to educate yourself on Obama's views on the topic before stating something so polar opposite from the truth.