Why so little discussion of McCain's economic plan?

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: T2T III
Looking at some of the "simple" numbers, you would benefit. However, if you had investments and had to pay higher capital gains taxes, you'd probably pay more taxes under Obama. Also, if Obama were to choke growth by nailing corporations with higher taxes, there's a higher likelyhood of less jobs being created - or, even more layoffs to occur.

If you don't have any income coming in due to the loss of a job, then there's zero benefit under Obama's tax plan.

Looking at tax plans alone is a very foolish way to determine unemployment estimations.

Plus your argument about choking growth is flawed. If you look at the estimated figures in regards to how much Obama will actually be taxing the larger corps there is nothing which could possibly cause them to downsize unless their business plans are horribly flawed or if people like the middle and lower class are not buying their products and services.

The fact of the matter is that history has proven that even under the most aggressive progressive tax plans the rich have NEVER stopped getting richer and growing. They have never downsized as a result of the taxation. They only ever downsize as a result of the consumers not buying and the lack of credit. Even then that often has a whole lot to do with how you run your business.

Blaming unemployment on progressive tax plans is nothing but a shitty cop out for the real reasons that companies go under and/or downsize. The proof is in the historical public records.

 

[theeedude]

Back to McCain's economic plan. Oh wait, there isn't one

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: badnewcastle

Originally posted by: Hugh H

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Why so little discussion about anything in Obama's past? How come nobody talks about his plans to make things more fair??? He wants to take money from people who worked really hard and give it to people who hardly work... hows that fair?

One thing about tax cuts that might be surprising to all of you against them...

Historically when taxes are cut, tax revenue goes up.
When taxes are raised, tax revenue has gone down.

So I earn about 75k a year. I would benefit more under an Obama administration than a McCain one. Are you saying I'm not a hard-worker?

No, you probably are... but if your employed, for example:

Your employer's tax liablity will be increasing and they will have to start making cuts and he wants to get rid of the payroll cap for people making 102k/year.

If your self employed under Obama's plan (which we don't even know what that is at this point because he keeps flopping), here is what happens to someone making self-employed making $251k/year:

1) Federal income tax increases by 8.7%
2) Payroll taxes increase (med/social securty etc...) by 7.5% x2 because you pay it for yourself twice now and for any other employee you pay once. So that's 15%...

15 + 8.7 = 23.7% tax increase for someone that is self-employed making $251k/year. Or in numbers their tax liability will increase by $59,487.00. Sure you can say only a small percentage make that much but they pay a large percentage of tax as it is.

You fail at math so bad. Read up on marginal tax rates before you start debating tax policy.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: T2T III

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Why so little discussion about anything in Obama's past? How come nobody talks about his plans to make things more fair??? He wants to take money from people who worked really hard and give it to people who hardly work... hows that fair?

One thing about tax cuts that might be surprising to all of you against them...

Historically when taxes are cut, tax revenue goes up.
When taxes are raised, tax revenue has gone down.

A few reasons ...

1) People are fed up with Bush, but will accept new change - at any cost.

2) Plenty of Democrats out there who spend zero or little time reading up on the facts, or lack thereof.

3) A large percentage of the voter base for Obama don't understand the benefits of capital gains tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, etc.

I agree

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: T2T III

Originally posted by: Hugh H

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Why so little discussion about anything in Obama's past? How come nobody talks about his plans to make things more fair??? He wants to take money from people who worked really hard and give it to people who hardly work... hows that fair?

One thing about tax cuts that might be surprising to all of you against them...

Historically when taxes are cut, tax revenue goes up.
When taxes are raised, tax revenue has gone down.

So I earn about 75k a year. I would benefit more under an Obama administration than a McCain one. Are you saying I'm not a hard-worker?

Looking at some of the "simple" numbers, you would benefit. However, if you had investments and had to pay higher capital gains taxes, you'd probably pay more taxes under Obama. Also, if Obama were to choke growth by nailing corporations with higher taxes, there's a higher likelyhood of less jobs being created - or, even more layoffs to occur.

If you don't have any income coming in due to the loss of a job, then there's zero benefit under Obama's tax plan.

Nailing corporations? By closing loopholes?

Fail.

What is a 'loophole', why didn't Clinton close them, and why do you think Democrats in Congress are somehow smarter than millions of tax accountants across the nation?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Why so little discussion about anything in Obama's past? How come nobody talks about his plans to make things more fair??? He wants to take money from people who worked really hard and give it to people who hardly work... hows that fair?

One thing about tax cuts that might be surprising to all of you against them...

Historically when taxes are cut, tax revenue goes up.
When taxes are raised, tax revenue has gone down.

What he wants is to take money from people whose MONEY works for them and give it to people who WORK for their money. As a result, some people who hardly work and hardly have money will get some too, but it's a side effect.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: badnewcastle

Originally posted by: Hugh H

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Why so little discussion about anything in Obama's past? How come nobody talks about his plans to make things more fair??? He wants to take money from people who worked really hard and give it to people who hardly work... hows that fair?

One thing about tax cuts that might be surprising to all of you against them...

Historically when taxes are cut, tax revenue goes up.
When taxes are raised, tax revenue has gone down.

So I earn about 75k a year. I would benefit more under an Obama administration than a McCain one. Are you saying I'm not a hard-worker?

No, you probably are... but if your employed, for example:

Your employer's tax liablity will be increasing and they will have to start making cuts and he wants to get rid of the payroll cap for people making 102k/year.

If your self employed under Obama's plan (which we don't even know what that is at this point because he keeps flopping), here is what happens to someone making self-employed making $251k/year:

1) Federal income tax increases by 8.7%
2) Payroll taxes increase (med/social securty etc...) by 7.5% x2 because you pay it for yourself twice now and for any other employee you pay once. So that's 15%...

15 + 8.7 = 23.7% tax increase for someone that is self-employed making $251k/year. Or in numbers their tax liability will increase by $59,487.00. Sure you can say only a small percentage make that much but they pay a large percentage of tax as it is.

You fail at math so bad. Read up on marginal tax rates before you start debating tax policy.

This.

That was as ueseless and inaccurate a description as I have ever see. It's so bad it's Dumb Ass material .

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: winnar111What is a 'loophole', why didn't Clinton close them, and why do you think Democrats in Congress are somehow smarter than millions of tax accountants across the nation?

I'm fully in agreement. There's no way the Democrats will be able to close all of the loopholes. As soon as one leak is plugged, a new one will develop.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: T2T III

Originally posted by: winnar111What is a 'loophole', why didn't Clinton close them, and why do you think Democrats in Congress are somehow smarter than millions of tax accountants across the nation?

I'm fully in agreement. There's no way the Democrats will be able to close all of the loopholes. As soon as one leak is plugged, a new one will develop.

I guess if there is no way to plug the loopholes then the only answer is to keep adding more taxes then...

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: T2T III

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: T2T III

Originally posted by: Hugh H

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Why so little discussion about anything in Obama's past? How come nobody talks about his plans to make things more fair??? He wants to take money from people who worked really hard and give it to people who hardly work... hows that fair?

One thing about tax cuts that might be surprising to all of you against them...

Historically when taxes are cut, tax revenue goes up.
When taxes are raised, tax revenue has gone down.

So I earn about 75k a year. I would benefit more under an Obama administration than a McCain one. Are you saying I'm not a hard-worker?

Looking at some of the "simple" numbers, you would benefit. However, if you had investments and had to pay higher capital gains taxes, you'd probably pay more taxes under Obama. Also, if Obama were to choke growth by nailing corporations with higher taxes, there's a higher likelyhood of less jobs being created - or, even more layoffs to occur.

If you don't have any income coming in due to the loss of a job, then there's zero benefit under Obama's tax plan.

Nailing corporations? By closing loopholes?

Fail.

And, you don't think that high earner households that would greatly be impacted by Obama's tax plan wouldn't have their lawyers and investments folks searching for more loopholes for them, too?

Greatly impacted?

Someone making 280K a year is going to have their income taxes raised by about 2K a year. Greatly impacted?

These are resetting their tax rates back to Clintonian levels.

Again, the average person makes like $35k or maybe less a year, if you are making ~8 times that much YOU ARE DOING VERY WELL.

This is a sad and tired argument, you cannot claim the moral high ground and defend tax cheating on principle which whether you realize or not, is exactly what you are doing.

The income gap in this country is far too large, the people at the top have been running away from the rest of us, OUR wages are stagnant, the wealth isn't trickling down. So yes, it's time for Uncle Sam to come in and institute some fairness. Greenspan warned about this in 2005.

There's this misconception that all of this money is going to be flowing to bums who contribute nothing to society, that is false. The people posting here are going to be the biggest beneficiary's, yes those of us who do work and do pay a hell of a lot in taxes already.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: T2T III

Originally posted by: winnar111What is a 'loophole', why didn't Clinton close them, and why do you think Democrats in Congress are somehow smarter than millions of tax accountants across the nation?

I'm fully in agreement. There's no way the Democrats will be able to close all of the loopholes. As soon as one leak is plugged, a new one will develop.

If leaks keep popping up, just kill the plumber. Joe the Plumber

 

[Thump553]

This thread is a pretty good snapshot of why McCain will almost certainly lose the election. The original topic posed was to discuss McCAIN's economy policy, and I tried to present a fair summary of what that is.

The GOP/McCain supporters postings are along the line of why isn't Obama's past associates discussed (like it hasn't already been done ad nauseum) or attacks on Obama's economic plan, as they distort it.

The Obama supporters pretty much also discuss Obama's plan, usually defending it.

About the only comment on McCain's economic plan was this rather telling one:

Back to McCain's economic plan. Oh wait, there isn't one

In a nutshell, the reasons McCain shall lose are (a) he is unsuccessful at articulating any positive specific plan for the direction he wants to lead this country and (b) McCain's strategy is essentially limited to attacks on his opponent.

Electioneering for Dummies basic rule (made up by me)-to run a successful campaign, you have to show the voters why they should vote for you. Corollary rule: Demonizing your opponent is useful for sharping the distinction between you, but will not WIN elections on its own.

I am still interested if anyone thinks McCain's spending freeze is a good idea. I still think it would be horrendous.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: T2T III

Originally posted by: winnar111What is a 'loophole', why didn't Clinton close them, and why do you think Democrats in Congress are somehow smarter than millions of tax accountants across the nation?

I'm fully in agreement. There's no way the Democrats will be able to close all of the loopholes. As soon as one leak is plugged, a new one will develop.

Let's not pretend the Dems have any desire to close any loopholes anyway. Lobbyists know how to play both sides of the aisle, and they know who holds all the cards right now. Isn't Obama taking in much more money than McCain right now? The money follows the power, and the Dems are already being bought, just like the GOP was when it was in charge.

 

[SP33Demon]

McCain hasn't read Greenspan's book yet, he'll have a plan after that.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: T2T III

Originally posted by: winnar111What is a 'loophole', why didn't Clinton close them, and why do you think Democrats in Congress are somehow smarter than millions of tax accountants across the nation?

I'm fully in agreement. There's no way the Democrats will be able to close all of the loopholes. As soon as one leak is plugged, a new one will develop.

Let's not pretend the Dems have any desire to close any loopholes anyway. Lobbyists know how to play both sides of the aisle, and they know who holds all the cards right now. Isn't Obama taking in much more money than McCain right now? The money follows the power, and the Dems are already being bought, just like the GOP was when it was in charge.

Obama's money is mostly coming from private citizens donating small amounts. This actually seems like an excellent model for decreasing the influence of lobbyists. If regular citizens in large numbers can fund campaigns just as effectively or better than lobbyists, that would greatly reduce the influence they have on politicians.

So...where did McCain's money come from?

 

[Moonbeam]

Find me a group of filthy greedy ungrateful pigs and I will show you a way to get elected.

Tell them the other candidate is after their slop.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: T2T III

Originally posted by: winnar111What is a 'loophole', why didn't Clinton close them, and why do you think Democrats in Congress are somehow smarter than millions of tax accountants across the nation?

I'm fully in agreement. There's no way the Democrats will be able to close all of the loopholes. As soon as one leak is plugged, a new one will develop.

I guess if there is no way to plug the loopholes then the only answer is to keep adding more taxes then...

Except we collected more taxes in 2007 as a % of GDP than we did in the 50s thru 70s with those higher taxes.....

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: T2T III

Originally posted by: winnar111What is a 'loophole', why didn't Clinton close them, and why do you think Democrats in Congress are somehow smarter than millions of tax accountants across the nation?

I'm fully in agreement. There's no way the Democrats will be able to close all of the loopholes. As soon as one leak is plugged, a new one will develop.

I guess if there is no way to plug the loopholes then the only answer is to keep adding more taxes then...

Except we collected more taxes in 2007 as a % of GDP than we did in the 50s thru 70s with those higher taxes.....

My response to that was mostly sarcastic.

The answer is to go line by line through the tax codes which is a monstrosity of a task at this point yet it is the only true answer. Ask any lawyer and they will tell you how ridiculous it is. It is the job no one wants to do even after you ignore the financial benefits that most in power receive by ignoring it in the first place. That is a problem that I do not expect any party to resolve anytime soon.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Thump553

I am still interested if anyone thinks McCain's spending freeze is a good idea. I still think it would be horrendous.

You would be correct.

A spending freeze is bullshit. McCain has no economic plan - except speaking ill of Obama/Biden.

McCain slings his bullshit ad hom bumper sticker one-liners. His economic plan is a spinnig dart board that panders to jingolistic mentality. He is now opposed to the bailout (we remember that embarrassing episode from his campaign) of which he voted in favor.

The McCain Plan
High gas prices? Tax cuts!
Crumbling Infrastructure? Tax Cuts!
Housing Crisis? Tax Cuts!
International Terrorism? Tax Cuts!
World-Wide Recession? Tax Cuts!
Financial Liquidity/Solvency Crisis? Tax Cuts!
Energy Crisis? Tax Cuts!
Crushing Federal Debt? Tax Cuts!

Does any of this sound familiar?


Obama is pragmatic enough to understand that the 70% of us in the middle class are being squeezed. Twenty percent of this country has negative net worth and is effectively living pay check to pay check. Ten percent of the country controls over 70% of our nation's income and wealth.

When Johnnie Mac sez he's going to balance the federal budget in 4 years with his 'magic spending freeze' how can anyone take him seriously? Defense spending is now 2/3's of the discretionary budget (up more than 25% in 8 years) and it's off limits?

The annual cost of Gross Interest on the Federal Debt will zoom past $500 billion this year and with the rate of growth will soon exceed $600 billion a year. The actual annual budget deficit was mostly likely $500 billion in FY2008.

There is no 'there' for a spending freeze 'there'. If that ain't fuzzy math I'm Salma Hayek.

I'll give McCain credit for at least acknowledging the boondoggle of the Part D Big Pharma Give-A-Way. But you have to take back that credit with his asinine $300 billion bank bailout on foreclosed loans.

No one - not Obama or McCain - is foolish enough to think that during this recession the US needs to dump on the 'wealthy' in America. But as the crisis eases (hopefully in 12-18 months ??) there has to be a focus on correcting the Federal budget mess. And that will not be accomplished without a return to the top tax rate from the Clinton years.

The Cons are being dishonest when they scream 'Socialist'! And they refuse to acknowledge that GDP grew faster during this ""ugly Clinton Socialist tax rate"". Nor do they care to acknowledge that 60% of American corporations pay no income tax and those that do have an effective rate of less than 15%. And this 'loophole' madness is just plain Fail. Wiping out tax scams and corporate welfare could easily save the US taxpayer $100 billion/year.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: T2T III

Originally posted by: winnar111What is a 'loophole', why didn't Clinton close them, and why do you think Democrats in Congress are somehow smarter than millions of tax accountants across the nation?

I'm fully in agreement. There's no way the Democrats will be able to close all of the loopholes. As soon as one leak is plugged, a new one will develop.

I guess if there is no way to plug the loopholes then the only answer is to keep adding more taxes then...

Except we collected more taxes in 2007 as a % of GDP than we did in the 50s thru 70s with those higher taxes.....

Except as a percentage of GDP defense spending has risen 50% in the last 8 years.

See how easy this is, Weener?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Historically when taxes are cut, tax revenue goes up.
When taxes are raised, tax revenue has gone down.

there is nothing in history that confirms this.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: T2T III
Along similar lines ...

I'm a bit worried about Barney Frank's recommendation to whack 25% off of the defense budget, give the potential issues that lie ahead with Venezueala, Russia/Georgia and Iran.

we could cut military spending in half and still romp over any or all of those countries without much difficulty.

 

[jpeyton]

You realize why nothing "sticks" to Obama? Why he's the Teflon Don?

Because nobody wants 4 more years of GWB 2.0.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: badnewcastle

Originally posted by: Hugh H

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Why so little discussion about anything in Obama's past? How come nobody talks about his plans to make things more fair??? He wants to take money from people who worked really hard and give it to people who hardly work... hows that fair?

One thing about tax cuts that might be surprising to all of you against them...

Historically when taxes are cut, tax revenue goes up.
When taxes are raised, tax revenue has gone down.

So I earn about 75k a year. I would benefit more under an Obama administration than a McCain one. Are you saying I'm not a hard-worker?

No, you probably are... but if your employed, for example:

Your employer's tax liablity will be increasing and they will have to start making cuts and he wants to get rid of the payroll cap for people making 102k/year.

If your self employed under Obama's plan (which we don't even know what that is at this point because he keeps flopping), here is what happens to someone making self-employed making $251k/year:

1) Federal income tax increases by 8.7%
2) Payroll taxes increase (med/social securty etc...) by 7.5% x2 because you pay it for yourself twice now and for any other employee you pay once. So that's 15%...

15 + 8.7 = 23.7% tax increase for someone that is self-employed making $251k/year. Or in numbers their tax liability will increase by $59,487.00. Sure you can say only a small percentage make that much but they pay a large percentage of tax as it is.

you don't understand marginal tax rates at all do you? nice voodoo math.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: T2T III

Originally posted by: Hugh H

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Why so little discussion about anything in Obama's past? How come nobody talks about his plans to make things more fair??? He wants to take money from people who worked really hard and give it to people who hardly work... hows that fair?

One thing about tax cuts that might be surprising to all of you against them...

Historically when taxes are cut, tax revenue goes up.
When taxes are raised, tax revenue has gone down.

So I earn about 75k a year. I would benefit more under an Obama administration than a McCain one. Are you saying I'm not a hard-worker?

Looking at some of the "simple" numbers, you would benefit. However, if you had investments and had to pay higher capital gains taxes, you'd probably pay more taxes under Obama. Also, if Obama were to choke growth by nailing corporations with higher taxes, there's a higher likelyhood of less jobs being created - or, even more layoffs to occur.

If you don't have any income coming in due to the loss of a job, then there's zero benefit under Obama's tax plan.

Nailing corporations? By closing loopholes?

Fail.

What is a 'loophole', why didn't Clinton close them, and why do you think Democrats in Congress are somehow smarter than millions of tax accountants across the nation?

its not really about being smarter than tax accountants, its about making them work harder. Reagan closed lots of tax loopholes during his term and tax revenues jumped substantially.