White House race is a close call

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
My problem with the excessive oil profits mantra is what is deemed excessive?

Is it going to be a norm that we tax corporations for good performance?

When it impacts the country negatively, yes.

Hello??? They won't eat the cost. They'll pass it on to us. To YOU.

ADDING A COST DOES NOT LOWER ANY PRICES. Increase cost on one end = increased cost on the other end. Seriously, is this really that hard of a concept to understand for some people? Taxes don't fix all problems!

This point has already been addressed. Additional costs to the producer do not always get passed on to the consumer, a lot of it depends on how much profit they are making to begin with, etc.

As has been said before, if this were the case it would never do anything to tax any business ever, and that is obviously false. So yes, your concept is difficult to understand because it's wrong.

Should we also place additional tariffs on the oil that we import since that is where the vast majority of it comes from? I bet that would bring down costs even more and maybe we can get a $2,000 check.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Vic
Fiscally liberal compared to what?

Me.

Calling Bush a fiscal conservative is absurd, and McCain doesn't seem to be that conservative, though he does at least attempt to sound the part: Link. Whether he actually wants to balance the budget and if he actually will is of course anyone's guess. Obama appears to want to spend money in a way that I find fiscally unsound for the reasons that I've already addressed in the thread.

Unfortunately I can't find where either candidate actually lays out a plan that involves numbers. Everyone wants to "Help the Middle Class!" and "Tax high income earners!" without actually saying what that means.

I'm a single 26-year old male who just bought a house. If I have to pay more tax money to bail out people who make more than me, use loopholes to pay less in taxes, and bought a house they couldn't afford... I might just lose it.

I don't think either candidate will make things that much better, but given what I can find about the man's policies, I think that Obama will make things worse.

I'm sure they will both make "things worse".

But the Republicans have been making "things worse" for 8 years, at least give a turn to the other side for a change.

It's the only option given to Americans once every four years, why not exercise that option?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
My problem with the excessive oil profits mantra is what is deemed excessive?

Is it going to be a norm that we tax corporations for good performance?

When it impacts the country negatively, yes.

Hello??? They won't eat the cost. They'll pass it on to us. To YOU.

ADDING A COST DOES NOT LOWER ANY PRICES. Increase cost on one end = increased cost on the other end. Seriously, is this really that hard of a concept to understand for some people? Taxes don't fix all problems!

This point has already been addressed. Additional costs to the producer do not always get passed on to the consumer, a lot of it depends on how much profit they are making to begin with, etc.

As has been said before, if this were the case it would never do anything to tax any business ever, and that is obviously false. So yes, your concept is difficult to understand because it's wrong.

Should we also place additional tariffs on the oil that we import since that is where the vast majority of it comes from? I bet that would bring down costs even more and maybe we can get a $2,000 check.

I don't know the specifics of this situation and to be honest I don't really care. My post was refuting the principle that taxing a business always just comes back to the consumer through higher prices. That is simply false.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
My problem with the excessive oil profits mantra is what is deemed excessive?

Is it going to be a norm that we tax corporations for good performance?

When it impacts the country negatively, yes.

Hello??? They won't eat the cost. They'll pass it on to us. To YOU.

ADDING A COST DOES NOT LOWER ANY PRICES. Increase cost on one end = increased cost on the other end. Seriously, is this really that hard of a concept to understand for some people? Taxes don't fix all problems!

This point has already been addressed. Additional costs to the producer do not always get passed on to the consumer, a lot of it depends on how much profit they are making to begin with, etc.

As has been said before, if this were the case it would never do anything to tax any business ever, and that is obviously false. So yes, your concept is difficult to understand because it's wrong.

Should we also place additional tariffs on the oil that we import since that is where the vast majority of it comes from? I bet that would bring down costs even more and maybe we can get a $2,000 check.

I don't know the specifics of this situation and to be honest I don't really care. My post was refuting the principle that taxing a business always just comes back to the consumer through higher prices. That is simply false.

I agree but we aren't really talking about taxing a specific business. We are talking about taxing an industry and as long as you tax them all you can be pretty certain that prices will rise.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

I agree but we aren't really talking about taxing a specific business. We are talking about taxing an industry and as long as you tax them all you can be pretty certain that prices will rise.

Again, not true at all. There are tons of considerations that go into what price you charge for something. Taxes are only one of them, and there's a ton of interplay. So again... no.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I'm sure they will both make "things worse".

But the Republicans have been making "things worse" for 8 years, at least give a turn to the other side for a change.

It's the only option given to Americans once every four years, why not exercise that option?

Because, in my opinion, Obama will screw things up a bit more than McCain. Like I said, there's no way of knowing since neither candidate seems to want to flesh out any of their plans.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I'm sure they will both make "things worse".

But the Republicans have been making "things worse" for 8 years, at least give a turn to the other side for a change.

It's the only option given to Americans once every four years, why not exercise that option?

Because, in my opinion, Obama will screw things up a bit more than McCain. Like I said, there's no way of knowing since neither candidate seems to want to flesh out any of their plans.

McCain could not possibly be as damaging as Obama, because congress can limit a lot of what he can do. Obama on the other hand will have full support of congress to screw things up -- scary indeed.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I'm sure they will both make "things worse".

But the Republicans have been making "things worse" for 8 years, at least give a turn to the other side for a change.

It's the only option given to Americans once every four years, why not exercise that option?

Because, in my opinion, Obama will screw things up a bit more than McCain. Like I said, there's no way of knowing since neither candidate seems to want to flesh out any of their plans.

McCain could not possibly be as damaging as Obama, because congress can limit a lot of what he can do. Obama on the other hand will have full support of congress to screw things up -- scary indeed.

What I find strange is that on one hand people say that they prefer gridlock, the two parties unable to get things done so they don't "screw things up". Then later, they complain that Congress/the government isn't addressing important issues to them and is wasting it's time on stupid partisan things.

Just a news flash, when government is divided Congress and the White House will not 'address important issues' because they will be gridlocked by partisanship. If this is what you truly want that's fine, but then don't complain when they don't address energy policy, the war in Iraq, etc... etc.

 

[Jhhnn]

This whole call for divided govt is just an attempted rear-guard action by the rightwing, anyway. they largely have the policies in place that they want, and now try to maintain them...

The people calling for it now sure weren't doing it in 2002... they were in the front line of attack, initiating the greatest looting spree in the history of this country.

 

[jonks]

Topic Summary: Obama should be leading by a landslide, but isnt. Here's why:

Because the McCain campaign lies and distorts the truth and the average american doesn't have time to fact check every ad they see and hear, and as a result the mud sticks?

Factcheck today:

More Tax Deceptions
August 8, 2008
McCain misrepresents Obama's tax proposals again. And again, and again.
Summary
McCain released three new ads with multiple false and misleading claims about Obama's tax proposals.

* A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase "on people making just $42,000 a year." That's true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year ? if the measure had been enacted. But the ad shows a woman with two children, and as a single mother, she would not have been affected unless she made more than $62,150. The increase that Obama once supported as part of a Democratic budget bill is not part of his current tax plan anyway.

* A Spanish-language radio ad claims the measure Obama supported would have raised taxes on "families" making $42,000, which is simply false. Even a single mother with one child would have been able to make $58,650 without being affected. A family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected.

* The TV ad claims in a graphic that Obama would "raise taxes on middle class." In fact, Obama's plan promises cuts for middle-income taxpayers and would increase rates only for persons with family incomes above $250,000 or with individual incomes above $200,000.

* The radio ad claims Obama would increase taxes "on the sale of your home." In fact, home-sale profits of up to $500,000 per couple would continue to be exempt from capital gains taxes. Very few sales would see an increase under Obama's proposal to raise the capital gains rate.

* A second radio ad, in English, says, "Obama has a history of raising taxes" on middle-class Americans. But that's false. It refers to a vote that did not actually result in a tax increase and could not have done so.

These ads continue what's become a pattern of misrepresentation by the McCain campaign about his opponent's tax proposals.