Obama must read

[2001400ex]

Just in case you missed it, the average small business owner has $45,000 in income, with less that $30,000 in taxable income. I work in a small business (about 75 employees) and the two owners both will make over $1,000,000 this year, and they made about $500,000 a year during the first Bush tax cut. I promise you, not a penny of their tax cuts went into this business. One just bought a couple more houses/farms, the other wasted it in the stock market.

I cannot stress this enough, the trickle down theory is just that, a theory. Business owners hire employees based on demand, not on their personal incomes. Cutting taxes for the rich only has one effect, which is increase the federal deficit.

Oh, one other fact. One of the owners pays less in income taxes every year than I do. How do you like that?

 

[XC700116]

Well it sounds like you better run out and start a business!

It all boils down to particular businesses and who and how they are run. If they taxes are higher then you have less available capital for expansion if you choose to do so. And What about all that money they spent? Did that just disappear or did it possibly go to another business or individual? If the owner chooses to spend that money then it still goes back into the economy at some point. The only way it doesn't is if he buried it in the back yard. When the government sucks it up it can go back into the economy to people that didn't work for it, government contracting, subsidies, wars, or gets spent on whatever pet project happens to come up at the time. I'd rather the guy that earned it spend it on whatever he fricken chooses.

Your instance about taxable income is exactly one of the major problems with the tax code. It needs to be simplified and loopholes closed not twisted for election purposes. Either way Obama nor McCain as president can actually manipulate it, they can only persuade the lawmakers to do a certain thing and sign it or Veto it which is the main problem with electing Obama, He'll sign what the dems in congress put in front of him. This also goes for land closures, more wilderness, more gun control legislation, and the many other pet projects of big govt democrats.

I cannot stress this enough THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT AN ECONOMIC REGULATOR and should not be meddling in the market by propping up banks that are failing, bailing out people that signed mortgages they can't afford, and subsidizing industries that can't be profitable, Among many other ideas of the sort listed on OBAMA's website under his economic plan.

 

[Wade]

I read both of them. What I took away is that McCain supports businesses, and Obama wants to create tax based welfare, "earned" income credits and such. XC700116's numbers do not include the 6.2% increase Obama proposed on all persons making more than $250,000. I don't see where their policies are all that close together. Obama is going to smack it to the rich (<$250,000), McCain is going to reduce everyone's tax. The reason his proposal shows up as so big for the mega rich, is because he's proposing removing the AMT tax.

Both candidates suck. But, I trust McCain with the country's well being, and don't trust Obama. Did you notice the only bill he's ever passed was to provide money ("support" "relief") to another country?

The theme of redistributing our wealth and technology to third world countries pops up in nearly every category.

Well, 2001400ex and Ruffy are pretty good at throwing accusations at other users of this board. So, beside telling us about your one example in life, that should be transposed upon the average business owner (which I don't believe is true for the majority of business owners), how about telling me something specific? So far I haven't seen any references to anything you two have actually read, or support Obama for. Maybe you could amaze us with some of his legislative accomplishments. Or, maybe we could talk about how he got where he's at. And, the political bosses he owes favors too, you know the Chicago political boss connections, and the promises he made if they helped him. Or, let's talk about his wife's good fortune, you know, her dramatic salary increase after her husband became someone.

 

[2001400ex]

Okay Wade, how about this fact. Can anyone say Clinton lowered taxes in the 90s? And that was the longest period of expansion in our nations history. We cut taxes for the rich in the 80s and 2000s and have had several recessions as a result.

Do you see a trend? Like I said, I just want people to actually read facts and read what these candidates want. If you choose McSame, that is fine, but at least base it on fact. I hate hearing "Obama scares me" or "That Muslim communist is going to ruin our country"

Please just open your mind and read the proposals of the candidates.

 

[Wade]

Okay Wade, how about this fact. Can anyone say Clinton lowered taxes in the 90s? And that was the longest period of expansion in our nations history. We cut taxes for the rich in the 80s and 2000s and have had several recessions as a result.

Do you see a trend? Like I said, I just want people to actually read facts and read what these candidates want. If you choose McSame, that is fine, but at least base it on fact. I hate hearing "Obama scares me" or "That Muslim communist is going to ruin our country"

Please just open your mind and read the proposals of the candidates.

No, Clinton and a Democratic Congress created the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. It created two new tax brackets for people making over $140,000 a year. And, raised their taxes from 31%, to 36% or 39.6%.

After the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, yet another tax bracket was created for people making below the poverty line. Their tax rate went from 15% to 10%. With all their deductions, they usually get more back than they pay. (tax based welfare). But, the highest earners tax rate went from 39.6% to 35%.

One reason for Clintons up tic in the economy was a series of changes which resulted in welfare people having to get a job, believe it or not. Later it was followed by the now famous internet bubble. Now, if your going to tell me that Clinton created the Internet bubble. I'm gonna explode. He had nothing to do with it, and by the time his presidency was over, the economy was on the skids.

The only thing that saved it was changes to 401k laws, and a new bubble, the housing bubble. Which proceeded into the Bush presidency. And, Congress had a lot to do with creating the housing bubble. The housing bubble did feed off the profits of the stock bubble, but they were independent events. The first caused by a new form of communications, the second caused by changes in law.

We are currently in the commodity bubble, but if you listen, you can hear it collapsing right now.

By the way, the economy has been great from 1995 until 2007. Maybe not for a webpage designer in SanFran, but the rest of us have been doing fairly well.

Also, campaign promises are lies. Both sides, I don't care what they say. Those plans fall apart the minute all three branches of the government get involved. What counts is what kind of person you are electing. Trustworthy. Socialist, Capitalist, Communist, Greenie, Constitutionalist, or Asz Kicker. Clinton sold the country out to China, Bush did his own things. What will Obama or McCain do?

 

[cmantle1]

Okay Wade, how about this fact. Can anyone say Clinton lowered taxes in the 90s? And that was the longest period of expansion in our nations history. We cut taxes for the rich in the 80s and 2000s and have had several recessions as a result.

Do you see a trend? Like I said, I just want people to actually read facts and read what these candidates want. If you choose McSame, that is fine, but at least base it on fact. I hate hearing "Obama scares me" or "That Muslim communist is going to ruin our country"

Please just open your mind and read the proposals of the candidates.

i like this guy's opinion....

 

[2001400ex]

Wade, I do appreciate you showing my point (and I am surprised people actually know the tax rates). We came out of the 1991-1992 recession and raised taxes on the rich and we had the longest period of expansion. Which was partially because of the internet bubble. But the internet bubble was created by consumer confidence. When we were paying off our national debt for the first time since the 1950s, people felt comfortable spending money, which creates jobs, which creates more money.

The likes of Hannity, O'Reilly, and Glen Beck would have you think that raising taxes on the rich (themselves) would destroy the economy and actually put it in reverse. This is their propoganda since they do not want their own taxes to go up.

Look at history, and it will tell you everything.

 

[ruffryder]

Well, 2001400ex and Ruffy are pretty good at throwing accusations at other users of this board. So, beside telling us about your one example in life, that should be transposed upon the average business owner (which I don't believe is true for the majority of business owners), how about telling me something specific? So far I haven't seen any references to anything you two have actually read, or support Obama for. Maybe you could amaze us with some of his legislative accomplishments. Or, maybe we could talk about how he got where he's at. And, the political bosses he owes favors too, you know the Chicago political boss connections, and the promises he made if they helped him. Or, let's talk about his wife's good fortune, you know, her dramatic salary increase after her husband became someone.

accusations? What do you call the above? Is this a kitchen party? Pot here is Kettle!

I post references to Obama crap all the time.....

 

[Wade]

Nothing like a cup of coffee in the morning, and seeing you got Ruffy ruffled. Sorry, ruffy, I just had to throw you under the bus just to hear you scream.

I think you can read a lot more into the tax rate thing. But, my point is that tax rates have been all over the board. The economy has been great in all that time. I think tax rates on the rich do effect the economy, but not anything like the rates that a bubble can cause. By the way, all that huge economic expansion blew up in a lot of people's faces when it crashed. A lot of people got burned. Just like the housing bubble, and soon it will be gold hoarders and oil speculators. Rich people tend to create wealth (JOBS) that don't rob the little people in the end, big difference between losing a job you had, and losing your house you've paid into for 4 years. At 5% unemployment, you go get another job.

I happen to believe in a fair, flat tax for everyone, and a massive reduction in loopholes. I assume by your statements that you understand math (which most people don't) and therefore would admit when you make more money, you pay a lot more money in taxes. Since 25% of $33,000, is less than half of 25% of $78,000. Plus, the percentage you pay increases as you make more. So, a person making $70,000 will pay 25% tax, where a person making $100,000 will pay 33%. I know I pay more taxes than other family members make salary, but I don't own any businesses. And, they get a lot more from the government, where I'm eligible for nothing.

My basic problem is that taxes are unfairly appointed. Yes too many people use loopholes to pay less than their fair share. But, Democrats have continued to use taxes as another way to create welfare. So, some idiot will come on here and start spewing numbers about how little the US pays in welfare, but fail to see all of the hidden and unaccounted for welfare we give. Just take hospitals for example, you know why you pay so much to visit, because your paying for two other people who couldn't pay. Another form of hidden welfare.

 

[Mooseknuckle]

i like this guy's opinion....

Put your stick away, this soup is thick enough.

... When we were paying off our national debt for the first time since the 1950s, people felt comfortable spending money, which creates jobs, which creates more money.

Better check your facts my man. I'm pretty sure that we eliminated a lot of deficit spending, but I don't think that there was much debt reduction. I'll give you that at the end of the Clinton administration I/E ratios were about even, but that was largely because of a shift of mandates from the feds to the state governments coupled with a reduction in military spending.

...comfortable spending money, which creates jobs, which creates more money

Careful with loose talk like that, you'll be labeled a "conservative"


I have a question - raising taxes was the answer during the Clinton Administration - who benefitted from that?

 

[ruffryder]

Nothing like a cup of coffee in the morning, and seeing you got Ruffy ruffled. Sorry, ruffy, I just had to throw you under the bus just to hear you scream.

Scream? This is the internet man, going to take much much more than that to get me angry.... you just got me disappointed...

Or, maybe we could talk about how he got where he's at. And, the political bosses he owes favors too, you know the Chicago political boss connections, and the promises he made if they helped him. Or, let's talk about his wife's good fortune, you know, her dramatic salary increase after her husband became someone.

Still waiting for your references for the above accusations.... Or is this talking the talk, and hitching a ride on the bus for the walk.

 

[Wade]

When you look at both McCain's and Obama's stance on taxes and what they are planning to do, they are pretty darn close to being the same.. You might want to check it out.... Seems a lot of people are assuming something here.

OK, try this. Where's the beef. "They pretty darn close "?????? WTF does that mean. As compared to what?

"You might want to check it out.... Seems a lot of people are assuming something here.", I did, so, what are you accusing people of? Not providing anything useful to the conversation besides society class attacks?

Answer this question, (minimal substance is assumed), if Bill Clinton was put back in office, and followed his tax the upper middle class tell it hurts policy, would the economy replay "the longest period of expansion"? Or what's more likely, without another Bubble (tech, housing, commodity, whatever) would the economy suffer? I think you know the answer. He had nothing to do with it, and Gore didn't invent the Internet.

 

[ruffryder]

OK, try this. Where's the beef. "They pretty darn close "?????? WTF does that mean. As compared to what?

As compared to the McCain will give you all your money back, and Obama will take all over your money arguments. Are they the same? No, but the average person making 60 - 120k will not see much of a difference in the taxes that they pay.

"You might want to check it out.... Seems a lot of people are assuming something here.", I did, so, what are you accusing people of? Not providing anything useful to the conversation besides society class attacks?

Accusing people of using standard party line arguments instead of actually looking at policy....

Answer this question, (minimal substance is assumed), if Bill Clinton was put back in office, and followed his tax the upper middle class tell it hurts policy, would the economy replay "the longest period of expansion"? Or what's more likely, without another Bubble (tech, housing, commodity, whatever) would the economy suffer? I think you know the answer. He had nothing to do with it, and Gore didn't invent the Internet.

I do not know the answer, and by the fact that the debate between trickle up vs. trickle down economics is still a debate, leads me to believe there is no one answer. The economy has many more factors to it than whether or not the rich get taxed more or not. To draw conclusions from tax policy and economic results is very difficult. For one, it assumes that nothing else has an influence on the economy, and two, the time constants for that system are quite large, meaning the full effects of the tax changes happen 2-3 years out.

I put this argument right up there with the whole global warming debate... The system is way to complex for our feeble minds to comprehend, and trying to simplify the system to get a good analysis of cause and effect is pointless because, after all the system is not simple, it is complex!

Thanks for helping break up the work day... fricken working on a saturday...

 

[ruffryder]

Still waiting on the references to the Chicago boss info, BTW.

 

[Wade]

As compared to the McCain will give you all your money back, and Obama will take all over your money arguments. Are they the same? No, but the average person making 60 - 120k will not see much of a difference in the taxes that they pay.

McCain isn't going to give me anything. Basically, his plan is no change, unless you make 2.9 Million a year. Obama, is give to the poor, take a lot more from anyone making over 250K a year. That's different to me.

 

[Wade]

Still waiting on the references to the Chicago boss info, BTW.

Oh, we have a request: Some Story

In his campaign for president, Obama got the early backing of Mayor Richard Daley, who abandoned his long-standing tradition of remaining neutral in such contests. And within three months of Daley's endorsement, Obama added the other titans of Chicago politics to his list of backers: the Rev. Jesse Jackson and his son, U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., both harsh critics of the Daley machine.

Obama's top advisers include chief strategist David Axelrod, a onetime strategist for Daley; confidante Valerie Jarrett, who once served as Daley's deputy chief of staff; Patti Solis Doyle, a onetime Clinton aide who got her start in politics with Daley; and adviser William Daley, the mayor's brother, who chaired Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign.

Have you ever heard of Daley? Look at all his connections to the guy. Now, what does he owe Daley? Want some more?

 

[ruffryder]

Want some more?

Sure man, post em if you got em!

 

[ruffryder]

McCain isn't going to give me anything. Basically, his plan is no change, unless you make 2.9 Million a year. Obama, is give to the poor, take a lot more from anyone making over 250K a year. That's different to me.

So are you saying you are in the 250K bracket? Otherwise you will not see much of a difference in YOUR tax contribution with either. That is the point I am trying, and failing, to make.

 

[ruffryder]

Have you ever heard of Daley? Look at all his connections to the guy. Now, what does he owe Daley?

After reading the article, it doesn't make the connections that you seem to be implying... though it was a good article. In my opinion SOME of the article actually makes Obama sound more appealing, though SOME of the article give me pause about Obama.

From you "Same Story" Link.

The Obama-Daley relationship is complicated. When Obama first entered Chicago politics, Daley had little interest in him. In 2000, when Obama ran against U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush for Congress, the Daley machine backed Rush. In 2004, when he ran successfully for the U.S. Senate, Obama did so again without the backing of the machine.

Still, after the 2004 Senate election, Obama and Daley achieved an uneasy detente. That almost ended in the summer of 2005 when Obama remarked to the Chicago Sun-Times that an investigation of alleged corruption at City Hall had given him "huge pause" about endorsing Daley for re-election.

It seems from this that Daley didn't have much to do with where/how Obama got to the Illinois Senate? Maybe it was Daley that thought, man I am going to have to lighten up to this guy, he might be a US Senator some day.... I know the last sentence is a stretch, but it is just a thought.

Reason for Pause

In 1996, he ran for the Illinois Senate with the blessing of the incumbent, Alice Palmer, who was seeking election to Congress. When her congressional campaign faltered, Palmer tried to hold her state Senate seat, but Obama, experienced in voter registration drives, challenged her nominating petition and those of other rivals until Palmer stepped aside and the others were forced off the ballot.

In a spring interview with the Chicago Tribune, Obama said he was "just abiding by the rules" in that first campaign against Palmer. But the Tribune suggested Obama's effort "clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: the man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it."

"The whole episode showed that Obama was an extraordinarily ambitious young man willing to do whatever it took to advance not only his agenda of community empowerment but his own political career," author David Mendell wrote in "Obama: From Promise to Power."

".....willing to do whatever it took..." seems like a stretch and can be interpreted many ways.. like willing to kill etc. Maybe he just didn't like getting outed when he thought he was in? Yah, there is another stretch, but it makes him sound better in my eyes...

You know, I don't mind this at all. I am learning so fricken much about Obama, McCain, and the whole political system that it is crazy... But all that it takes is a little time... and dual monitors at work! lol

 

[milehighassassin]

By the way, the economy has been great from 1995 until 2007.

Are you kidding me?

The last 6 years have been horrid.