Obamanomics

[Guest]

How does the redistribution of wealth under Obama's plan help our economy.

Obama has stated repeatedly he will reduce taxes for the "middle class" by 95%. He will make it up by taxing the wealthy, big corporations and businesses. Further, he will raise estate (inheritance) taxes, dividends, capt ital gains taxes, and generally raid and soak up the capital that business needs to grow and create jobs.

From the Wall Street Journal:

The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore has done the math on Obama’s tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.

Do you think business and corporations will pass their tax increases on to the consumers (us) in price hikes....you bet. Will they layoff employees (us) to meet increased tax burdens....you bet. Will investors change strategies to avoid larger capital gains and dividend taxes...you bet. Will that put our economy further in the tank....fill in the blanks. Isn't this really a "stealth" taxation because either way the people are going to pay. It just makes them feel better that the wealthy and business are being hit. If you worked hard, sacrificed and made some money, are you happy about leaving your heirs just 45% of the product of your blood, sweat and tears while the government takes 55% for those that haven't worked so hard. See a good estate planner and ask him/her about what Obama and the democratic Congress want to do with your estate and find out how to hedge against it.

Under the evil George Bush tax cuts, the estate (death) tax will be repealed entirely in 2010. In a morbid way, its like going to Atlantic City and hitting the jackpot, your a winner if you die in 2010. No estate taxes. Imagine that, your family gets to keep assets you earned. Thank you Mr. Bush.

Obama and the Democratic Congress have announced they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and reinstate the estate tax. No joke, its part of their platform. However, they have promised us that they will not allow it to go back to pre-Bush rates. Now isn't that comforting. You can sleep well tonight because Congress and Obama have promised you it will be ok. Be afraid....be very afraid.

Have I mentioned the unbelievable growing of government the Obama and democratic Congress will need to implement their platform? Everyone complains about the Social Security problem....soooo....under Obamanomics we will add a trillion dollar universal health care plan....run of course by THE GOVERNMENT. Now I'm a charitable person and do not want to see anyone denied health care...in fact I support the laws we have today that say no one with a medical emergency can be turned away from a hospital. I know that's the law because its posted in every emergency room in the country. But, wouldn't it be prudent to address Social Security, the banking industry, the national debt and the economy generally before we start monumentally expensive new social initiatives. Like Dude.... tie up the loose ends before we start spending more like a drunken sailor. Chelsea, please, no McCain jokes here.

Just my thoughts on Obamanomics....I'm sure there's another perspective out there in the Villages.

[Guest]

Well, no one has to sit and try to figure out McCain's Economic policies. First, let's start with the fact that he proudly proclaimed that he knows nothing about Economics and then all you have to do is to look at is Bush's policies. Guaranteed, McCain is going to rubber stamp those. Get ready for stormy days ahead folks. It's amazing to me that another in their right mind would vote for 4 more years of the same. :22yikes:

[Guest]

Well, no one has to sit and try to figure out McCain's Economic policies. First, let's start with the fact that he proudly proclaimed that he knows nothing about Economics and then all you have to do is to look at is Bush's policies. Guaranteed, McCain is going to rubber stamp those. Get ready for stormy days ahead folks. It's amazing to me that another in their right mind would vote for 4 more years of the same. :22yikes:

The last time I checked, Sen. Obama's qualifications on economics are ..... I'm still looking! His B.A. is in political science (with a specialization in international relations), Juris Doctor curricula does not include "economics," and few professors of Constitutional Law dabble in economic theory as part of classroom preparation.

Unless he is so genius as to be able to create viable policy without training or experience in an area of unquestionalble complexity, whatever "economic policy" Sen. Obama preaches has to have been prepared by others versed in the subject and then fed into the teleprompter. At least Sen. McCain admits not being a know-it-all and needing counsel from technical experts on complex disciplines before taking the stage.

[Guest]

I once worked for a brilliant man that said "The key to success is to surround yourself with people that are smarter than you." I have no worries about Senator Obama and the advisers he will surround himself with. He doesn't want "YES" men/women, he wants to be challenged and he has an open mind.

McCain does not have an open mind, does not know ANYTHING about the economy and has an ego that simply won't allow him to be advised. Where have I heard that before? Oh, that's right. In the Bush administration.

So far McCain has surrounded himself with Karl Rove and clones and lobbyists up the wazooooo! Oh, and let's not forget Miss Alaska who believes foreign policy amounts to being able to see Russia from an island off of Alaska and a refueling stop-over in Ireland!

I honestly find this to be a no brainer.

[Guest]

Why is it the response to an issue raised is always the counterpoint for/against the other party VS discussing the point made in the thread.

I always look forward to a lively discussion on the subject at hand, which rarely happens on this forum.

None the less it has a certain entertainment value....I guess.:laugh

BTK:

[Guest]

How does the redistribution of wealth under Obama's plan help our economy.

Obama has stated repeatedly he will reduce taxes for the "middle class" by 95%. He will make it up by taxing the wealthy, big corporations and businesses. Further, he will raise estate (inheritance) taxes, dividends, capt ital gains taxes, and generally raid and soak up the capital that business needs to grow and create jobs.

From the Wall Street Journal:

The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore has done the math on Obama’s tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.



Do you think business and corporations will pass their tax increases on to the consumers (us) in price hikes....you bet. Will they layoff employees (us) to meet increased tax burdens....you bet. Will investors change strategies to avoid larger capital gains and dividend taxes...you bet. Will that put our economy further in the tank....fill in the blanks. Isn't this really a "stealth" taxation because either way the people are going to pay. It just makes them feel better that the wealthy and business are being hit. If you worked hard, sacrificed and made some money, are you happy about leaving your heirs just 45% of the product of your blood, sweat and tears while the government takes 55% for those that haven't worked so hard. See a good estate planner and ask him/her about what Obama and the democratic Congress want to do with your estate and find out how to hedge against it.

Under the evil George Bush tax cuts, the estate (death) tax will be repealed entirely in 2010. In a morbid way, its like going to Atlantic City and hitting the jackpot, your a winner if you die in 2010. No estate taxes. Imagine that, your family gets to keep assets you earned. Thank you Mr. Bush.

Obama and the Democratic Congress have announced they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and reinstate the estate tax. No joke, its part of their platform. However, they have promised us that they will not allow it to go back to pre-Bush rates. Now isn't that comforting. You can sleep well tonight because Congress and Obama have promised you it will be ok. Be afraid....be very afraid.

Have I mentioned the unbelievable growing of government the Obama and democratic Congress will need to implement their platform? Everyone complains about the Social Security problem....soooo....under Obamanomics we will add a trillion dollar universal health care plan....run of course by THE GOVERNMENT. Now I'm a charitable person and do not want to see anyone denied health care...in fact I support the laws we have today that say no one with a medical emergency can be turned away from a hospital. I know that's the law because its posted in every emergency room in the country. But, wouldn't it be prudent to address Social Security, the banking industry, the national debt and the economy generally before we start monumentally expensive new social initiatives. Like Dude.... tie up the loose ends before we start spending more like a drunken sailor. Chelsea, please, no McCain jokes here.

Just my thoughts on Obamanomics....I'm sure there's another perspective out there in the Villages.


Please provide a link to the actual article...there are a lot of emails flying around with false information. I will provide links to Obama's actual tax plan and what he has said in his speechs is that if you make less than $250,000 per year then you will pay NO higher taxes including payroll taxes. Obama also says he will use paygo which is requires tax cuts to be offset with cuts in spending. Bill Clinton used this method and we had a surplus...will all know what he have now and who was in the majority for 7 years.

[Guest]

Cologal, my, my, my. After all our lively exchanges you don't trust me. You think I made it up? The link was lifted right out of that objective, unbiased network CBS internet page. I'm glad you asked me to print it because there's so much informative stuff in it. Steve Moore has appeared on Larry Kudlow and Bill Maher for balance. This from Kudlow:

Obama believes he can use government, and not free markets, to drive the economy. But on taxes, trade, and regulation, Obama’s program is anti-growth. A President Obama would steer us in the social-market direction of Western Europe, which has produced only stagnant economies down through the years. It would be quite an irony. While newly emerging nations in Eastern Europe and Asia are lowering the tax penalties on capital - and reaping the economic rewards - Obama would raise them. Low-rate flat-tax plans are proliferating around the world. Yet Obama completely ignores this. American competitiveness would suffer enormously under Obama, as would job opportunities, productivity, and real wages.

Can you counter these points or will you just attack the source?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/15/opinion/main3839495.shtml?source=RSSattr=Opinion_3839495

P.S. Only the quotes in both my posts, in bold, are from an outside source, the rest is all mine, not a cut and paste..I always give attribution...in case your suspicious mind was wondering.

[Guest]

My, my, my. After all our lively exchanges you don't trust me. You think I made it up? The link was lifted right out that objective, unbiased network CBS internet page. I'm glad you asked me to print it because there's so much informative stuff in it. Steve Moore has appeared on Larry Kudlow and Bill Maher for balance. This from Kudlow:

Obama believes he can use government, and not free markets, to drive the economy. But on taxes, trade, and regulation, Obama’s program is anti-growth. A President Obama would steer us in the social-market direction of Western Europe, which has produced only stagnant economies down through the years. It would be quite an irony. While newly emerging nations in Eastern Europe and Asia are lowering the tax penalties on capital - and reaping the economic rewards - Obama would raise them. Low-rate flat-tax plans are proliferating around the world. Yet Obama completely ignores this. American competitiveness would suffer enormously under Obama, as would job opportunities, productivity, and real wages.

Can you counter these points or will you just attack the source?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/15/opinion/main3839495.shtml?source=RSSattr=Opinion_3839495
Nothing to counter!

You only raise taxes to acquire additional revenue to pay the costs of services provided by the government. When in doubt, you always raise taxes on those who you can get others to believe can afford it more, even if that is not true.

There is no wonder as to why in the past 200+ years European "progress" has been behind that of the US. National trade barriers, restrictionist economic programs and overwhelming social programs (very expensive!) held growth to minimal or minus, and were the catalyst to several wars among the tribes of Europe. Several very smart Europeans a couple of decades ago realized that sometimes good ideas occur on this side of the Atlantic, and mirroring the US as far as regional economic policies, population travel and capacity to work, standardization (in monetary unit and manufacturing) is what the European Union is really about - actually to be the United States of Europe! It works here, so why not there?

Trying to copy old and marginal European social and business programs which have proven to eat away at the country's capacity to sustain itself won't accomplish anything except a replication of the failures. Taxing business to death is what chased many companies from Europe to the US and Asia in the 1950's. Nationalized health care sounds like a wonderful ideal, but the cost for it, and the quality of care, has often proved wanting in areas that have it, and private health care is still often sought due to waiting lists and lack of choice. Basically, governments make lousy HMOs! Everywhere that has done both also has individual tax rates that are immense, leaving the populace with less in-pocket money than their American counterparts for the frill purchases we often view as necessities.

The newer nations in Europe have worked hard not to mimic the "old guard's" way of governing themselves to death. It has worked - not perfectly - but they are trying. The rise in their net worth has raised many an eyebrow in the "established" governments and financial institutions of Europe, and many of these new nations are now viable competitors to the "old guard."

Any political plan to "Euro-rize" anything in America may sound good to some, but it scares me silly.

[Guest]

In the speeches I saw and the reporting I have read, $50,000 was always the number he used. If he changed it to $250,000 that must be a recent change. Guess I will do a search and see. In fact when asked what he thought middle american income was and would be taxed more, the number was $75,000. I know many numbers have been floated, but could you provide the source of the $250,000? I honestly have never heard it from any one in the Obama campaign.

[Guest]

I was watching the Obama speech yesterday in Pueblo he said it in his speech. Just for balance I watched the most of the Palin speech from Golden.

But I will try to find a link for you.

[Guest]

but, then I would have to get into these nonsensical rants from some of the regulars. Sorry for the attitude, but mostly I try not even to look at Political because the comments are just ridiculous.

I do love the subject and am well versed. I'll do PMs though. Hope you don't take this wrong, but it's where I've come from experience on TOTV. :)

[Guest]

I understand retiredguy. I avoided them for a long time for the same reasons. For the last few weeks, to a large extent, we've been tied to the house waiting for contractors, tradesman, etc. while we do some upgrades. Started to go stir crazy. Got tired of the political noise coming from TV and decided to go interactive. Made the mistake of entering a political thread. I'm hooked. The nice thing is you can pick and choose what your interested in. It's pretty neat as long as it doesn't get personal....sometimes it does and you have the option of walking away.

It's addictive. I can't deny I enjoy the interaction and variety of views expressed. It's cathartic to the extent you can vent, or as you put it.....rant about your frustrations with politicians on both sides of the aisle. The best advantage in my opinion...is that you get to exercise your grey matter and that is as important as going to the gym.

I hope you reconsider and throw a post out there. You sound like you may have some interesting perspectives. Have a good day.

[Guest]

From the WSJ Opinion Archives

Stephen Moore
Stephen Moore joined The Wall Street Journal as a member of the editorial board and senior economics writer on May 31, 2005. He splits his time between Washington and New York, focusing on economic issues, including budget, tax and monetary policy.

Stephen has been a frequent contributor to the Journal over the years, and is previously known as the founder and former president of the Club for Growth, which raises money for political candidates who favor free-market economic policies. He left that position in 2004. Just prior to coming to the Journal, Stephen was president of a new organization, the Free Enterprise Fund.

Over the years Stephen has served as a senior economist on the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, as a budget expert for the Heritage Foundation and as a senior economics fellow at the Cato Institute, where he published dozens of studies on federal and state tax and budget policy. He was a consultant to the National Economic Commission in l987, and research director for President Reagan's Commission on Privatization.

Stephen is the author of five books, most recently, "Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Is Making America Richer." He graduated from the University of Illinois and holds a masters degree in economics from George Mason University.




By Brooks Jackson | factcheck.org
Aug 9, 2008 | Updated: 12:35 p.m. ET Aug 9, 2008
Recommended (6) FactCheck.org : Obama Ad Misleads on McCain's Education Record
Factcheck.org: FactChecking McCain
Factcheck.org: GOP Convention Spin, Part II
Factcheck.org: A Maverick Misleads
Factcheck.org: GOP Convention Spin
Factcheck.org: A McCain Ad's Faulty Tax Claim
See All Topics (2) Barack Obama
John McCain

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.

Analysis
Sen. John McCain's campaign released the 30-second spot Aug. 8. Campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said the ad would be running in Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

John McCain 2008 Ad: "Painful"

Announcer: Life in the spotlight must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough.

Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.

He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family.

Painful taxes, hard choices for your budget. Not ready to lead. That's the real Obama.

McCain: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

The ad continues McCain's pattern of misrepresenting Sen. Barack Obama's tax proposals as falling on middle-income families. It claims that Obama "promises more taxes on small businesses, seniors, your life savings, your family." But that's untrue for the vast majority of small businesses, seniors and individual taxpayers, who would see their taxes go down under Obama's actual plan. He proposes to increase taxes only for those with more than $250,000 in family income, or $200,000 in individual income.

[Guest]

From the WSJ Opinion Archives

Stephen Moore
Stephen Moore joined The Wall Street Journal as a member of the editorial board and senior economics writer on May 31, 2005. He splits his time between Washington and New York, focusing on economic issues, including budget, tax and monetary policy.

Stephen has been a frequent contributor to the Journal over the years, and is previously known as the founder and former president of the Club for Growth, which raises money for political candidates who favor free-market economic policies. He left that position in 2004. Just prior to coming to the Journal, Stephen was president of a new organization, the Free Enterprise Fund.

Over the years Stephen has served as a senior economist on the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, as a budget expert for the Heritage Foundation and as a senior economics fellow at the Cato Institute, where he published dozens of studies on federal and state tax and budget policy. He was a consultant to the National Economic Commission in l987, and research director for President Reagan's Commission on Privatization.

Stephen is the author of five books, most recently, "Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Is Making America Richer." He graduated from the University of Illinois and holds a masters degree in economics from George Mason University.




By Brooks Jackson | factcheck.org
Aug 9, 2008 | Updated: 12:35 p.m. ET Aug 9, 2008
Recommended (6) FactCheck.org : Obama Ad Misleads on McCain's Education Record
Factcheck.org: FactChecking McCain
Factcheck.org: GOP Convention Spin, Part II
Factcheck.org: A Maverick Misleads
Factcheck.org: GOP Convention Spin
Factcheck.org: A McCain Ad's Faulty Tax Claim
See All Topics (2) Barack Obama
John McCain

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.

Analysis
Sen. John McCain's campaign released the 30-second spot Aug. 8. Campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said the ad would be running in Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

John McCain 2008 Ad: "Painful"

Announcer: Life in the spotlight must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough.

Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.

He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family.

Painful taxes, hard choices for your budget. Not ready to lead. That's the real Obama.

McCain: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

The ad continues McCain's pattern of misrepresenting Sen. Barack Obama's tax proposals as falling on middle-income families. It claims that Obama "promises more taxes on small businesses, seniors, your life savings, your family." But that's untrue for the vast majority of small businesses, seniors and individual taxpayers, who would see their taxes go down under Obama's actual plan. He proposes to increase taxes only for those with more than $250,000 in family income, or $200,000 in individual income.

Thank you for this post and doing your homework. This ad is a flat out lie and I wish that people would see through it. I think that people that are "afraid" of Obama (for some inane reason) don't even listen when he speaks. It's so incredibly weird to me that they keep running this ad. It's a lie, plain and simple. :cus:

[Guest]

This is an article regarding the "candy" Obama has promised to the "swing" states around the Great Lakes for their votes during his latest vist. I have been watching this election so closely and I am appalled he would make this type of a promise when the US is in such financial turmoil. He has promised so much money to so many, he's beginning to look more like Santa Claus than a bona fide contender. He's losing a lot of points with me....

http://journaltimesonline.com/articles/2008/09/16/local_news/doc48cff47bc75f9669820047.prt

[Guest]

Interesting read conn8757. Glad you joined the dialog. The relevance of the cut and paste job comes close to hijacking the thread as it says nothing about the essence of thread. It does give Steve Moore's background. Quite impressive.

I would like to hear your or anyone else's opinion on the implications of Obama's tax plan on the economy and the taxpayer as concerns his tax increases on:

corporations
inheritance taxes (death taxes)
payroll taxes
capital gain taxes
dividend taxes

This was the essence of the thread. Can you speak directly to the points it tries to raise?

Do you think business and corporations will pass their tax increases on to the consumers (us) in price hikes....you bet. Will they layoff employees (us) to meet increased tax burdens....you bet. Will investors change strategies to avoid larger capital gains and dividend taxes...you bet. Will that put our economy further in the tank....fill in the blanks. Isn't this really a "stealth" taxation because either way the people are going to pay. It just makes them feel better that the wealthy and business are being hit. If you worked hard, sacrificed and made some money, are you happy about leaving your heirs just 45% of the product of your blood, sweat and tears while the government takes 55% for those that haven't worked so hard. See a good estate planner and ask him/her about what Obama and the democratic Congress want to do with your estate and find out how to hedge against it.

Under the evil George Bush tax cuts, the estate (death) tax will be repealed entirely in 2010. In a morbid way, its like going to Atlantic City and hitting the jackpot, your a winner if you die in 2010. No estate taxes. Imagine that, your family gets to keep assets you earned. Thank you Mr. Bush.

Obama and the Democratic Congress have announced they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and reinstate the estate tax. No joke, its part of their platform. However, they have promised us that they will not allow it to go back to pre-Bush rates. Now isn't that comforting. You can sleep well tonight because Congress and Obama have promised you it will be ok. Be afraid....be very afraid.

Have I mentioned the unbelievable growing of government the Obama and democratic Congress will need to implement their platform? Everyone complains about the Social Security problem....soooo....under Obamanomics we will add a trillion dollar universal health care plan....run of course by THE GOVERNMENT. Now I'm a charitable person and do not want to see anyone denied health care...in fact I support the laws we have today that say no one with a medical emergency can be turned away from a hospital. I know that's the law because its posted in every emergency room in the country. But, wouldn't it be prudent to address Social Security, the banking industry, the national debt and the economy generally before we start monumentally expensive new social initiatives. Like Dude.... tie up the loose ends before we start spending more like a drunken sailor. Chelsea, please, no McCain jokes here.

Just my thoughts on Obamanomics....I'm sure there's another perspective out there in the Villages.

I assure you I, as well as many others, could create a credible cut and paste hit job on either candidate regarding their campaign ads. I warn you, this whole TOTV thing can be very addicting but it is a great mental exercise. Hope you post often. Have a nice evening.

[Guest]

If what you say about his tax plan is true, basically no new taxes. And taxes on business don't count as that money either goes to stock holders to be taxed or taxed as the business. Net zero. Than how can he pay for all the things he has promised? The only way is to increase the income tax on the majority of Americans. And those over $250K are far from the majority. In fact only about the top 7% of tax payers. Not sure how this math works.

[Guest]

I learned all I need to know about Steve Moore with this book title.

"Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Is Making America Richer." He graduated from the University of Illinois and holds a masters degree in economics from George Mason University.

[Guest]

Cabo you have been had...you should have reused the title that Fox News discussion as reported in the WSJ.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121778298649407961.html

Here is a side by side comparison of the Obama and McCain tax cuts...

http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq115/cologal_223/GR2008061200193.gif

From the Washington Post..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

I think it was Tall Trees that first posted this...but here is what snopes says..looks like you read the same false email.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp

Factcheck

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_obama_tax_my_profits_if_i.html


As for the payroll tax....Obama leaves the payroll tax as it is except for people making over $250,000.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/13/politics/main4179941.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_4179941

Your post has been debunked.....

Oh well this has been fun.:)

[Guest]

Cologal! Thank you for finding that.

Cabo, I rarely joke about McCain. I find him deadly serious and scary. I do have a question though. Not to get personal, but Cabo, do you earn over $250K a year? I mean I might understand your complaints if you do. Just wondering. :shocked:

[Guest]

Your response does nothing to answer the question I asked in the post. You disregard the entire essence of the post grasping at contrived "gotcha" hits. Please read the first line carefully. You go off tilting with windmills and gleefully credit yourself as a debunker. Amazing, in your zeal to attack what your eyes won't believe, you put together a hip shot cut and paste that addresses an e-mail I never included in my case and somehow want others to believe that you have debunked what I said. You never "debunked" the only quote I used Stephen Moore. Frankly, I had given you more credit. Great propaganda technique by the way. In fact, your own Snopes cut and past does not conflict with anything in my post. Nothing disputes my point on the estate tax. Of course you have to read the point.Try proof reading your own arguments.

I asked for other perspectives, "....I'm sure there's another perspective out there in the Villages" and I get a rambling, diversionary cut and paste. I referenced a short article from CBS news by Larry Kudlow quoting Stephen Moore and you debunk some e-mail I never used and call it debunking. In law enforcement thats called framing the suspect. Sounds like desperation to me.

Where did I mention McCain's plan that your cut and paste speak to? I was not clear when I referenced the 95%. I should have said 95% wouldn't be raised and my question reflects that. I listened to Obama frequently during interviews on TV and that is where I culled the facts that helped form my opinion. He defended his capital gains and estate tax positions.

You seem to be unable to distinguish what my opinion is and what attribution for a quote is. How do you debunk someone's opinion. Most of my ranting is my opinion sparsely punctuated with source. Debunk the source, you did not, not the opinion. I would like to hear your opinions on the questions I raised.

BTW, I look forward to your debunking of my other post regarding the NY Times naming the bad guys in the recent financial meltdown. In that case I did heavily use quotes.........from the NY times.



How does the redistribution of wealth under Obama's plan help our economy.

Obama has stated repeatedly he will reduce taxes for the "middle class" by 95%. He will make it up by taxing the wealthy, big corporations and businesses. Further, he will raise estate (inheritance) taxes, dividends, capt ital gains taxes, and generally raid and soak up the capital that business needs to grow and create jobs.

From the Wall Street Journal:

The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore has done the math on Obama’s tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.

Do you think business and corporations will pass their tax increases on to the consumers (us) in price hikes....you bet. Will they layoff employees (us) to meet increased tax burdens....you bet. Will investors change strategies to avoid larger capital gains and dividend taxes...you bet. Will that put our economy further in the tank....fill in the blanks. Isn't this really a "stealth" taxation because either way the people are going to pay. It just makes them feel better that the wealthy and business are being hit. If you worked hard, sacrificed and made some money, are you happy about leaving your heirs just 45% of the product of your blood, sweat and tears while the government takes 55% for those that haven't worked so hard. See a good estate planner and ask him/her about what Obama and the democratic Congress want to do with your estate and find out how to hedge against it.

Under the evil George Bush tax cuts, the estate (death) tax will be repealed entirely in 2010. In a morbid way, its like going to Atlantic City and hitting the jackpot, your a winner if you die in 2010. No estate taxes. Imagine that, your family gets to keep assets you earned. Thank you Mr. Bush.

Obama and the Democratic Congress have announced they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and reinstate the estate tax. No joke, its part of their platform. However, they have promised us that they will not allow it to go back to pre-Bush rates. Now isn't that comforting. You can sleep well tonight because Congress and Obama have promised you it will be ok. Be afraid....be very afraid.

Have I mentioned the unbelievable growing of government the Obama and democratic Congress will need to implement their platform? Everyone complains about the Social Security problem....soooo....under Obamanomics we will add a trillion dollar universal health care plan....run of course by THE GOVERNMENT. Now I'm a charitable person and do not want to see anyone denied health care...in fact I support the laws we have today that say no one with a medical emergency can be turned away from a hospital. I know that's the law because its posted in every emergency room in the country. But, wouldn't it be prudent to address Social Security, the banking industry, the national debt and the economy generally before we start monumentally expensive new social initiatives. Like Dude.... tie up the loose ends before we start spending more like a drunken sailor. Chelsea, please, no McCain jokes here.

Just my thoughts on Obamanomics....I'm sure there's another perspective out there in the Villages.

Chelsea, I am retired and do not earn $250,000. Capital gains, dividends, estate taxes and the Obama plans impact on the future economy do concern me. A great percentage of Americans are invested in the markets through pension plans, 401's and other funds. I believe they will be hurt by Obama's repressive business taxes. Colgal's own attempt at "debunking" using FactCheck says Obama will raise capital gains, dividends and a complex formula that would have a 45% estate tax. McCain, 15%. I have never said I supported McCain's plan anywhere.

Yeah Cologal, like you said, this has been fun.

[Guest]

I believe if we all do our taxes like Charles Rangel who Nancy Palosi says is safe in his position, just what do we have to worry about?
I'm sorry I forgot it was his tax accountant that made all the errors.

:MOJE_whot::MOJE_whot:

[Guest]

Over time I have come to understand that the Republican talk heads are very good at getting us to fear the pain of taxes but what they don't tell is its their pain. The other day one of John McCain's financial spokespeople was on Hardball trying to explain McCain's statement that the fundamentals of the economy were strong as the Dow lost 500 points. Later it was noted she did that wearing a designer suit the price of which I could never afford.

Cabo .... you are worried about a 45% death tax. Your post said 55% so that was wrong...but unless the estate is greater than 3.5 million the death tax will be zero for both McCain and Obama. In fact that has really always been true..it was when my mother died. My sisters and I paid no death tax because her estate was under the limit...way under. My brother has a large estate and he is 85...his tax guy has already found ways to transfer the money now and reduce the tax bill. He laughs about it.

If you look at the tax estimates even though George Bush gave the rich BIG tax cuts McCain wants to give them more. Look at the numbers who benefits the most with McCain tax cuts? It isn't the middle class.

One is always able to express their opinion its a free country but you should include false statement disguised as fact like this:

The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore has done the math on Obama’s tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.

I don't make $250,000 per year ....my estate is no where near 3.5 million. In my bracket I will pay slightly more under Obama than McCain but not enough to make a difference to me.

Whenever I can I will expose the truth....you can take or leave it. But you can't change the truth.

[Guest]

When you disproportionately tax those who make the higher incomes, the result is usually higher costs on products and services to everyone else.

Those folk run or own the businesses and are going to maintain their income level despite higher taxes. So, guess who ends up with the bill in the end ?

[Guest]

For the past 8 years we have seen the affects of the no regulation, no holes barred and trickle down economy. The wealthy were given big tax cuts and the little guys got nothing.

The Republicans deregulated everything they can saying the free market would police itself. The lobbyists wrote the bankruptcy laws to force people to pay even if they could not. But now who is lining up with the hands out and who is going to pay?

The pendulum has swung to far in favor of business...it is time now to take care of the middle class. The middle class are the engine of the economy.

[Guest]

I dont see how anyone dont understand that the last 8 years were not the result of the Demo's. i watched a Repbulican from VA on TV lastnight do everything he could besides take responsibility that the GW administration has really put us in a hole. McCain has danced from one thing to the other, yes we need bailouts,, no we dont, oh wait yes we do.... I am a registered Rep. i hated Bill Clinton.. i had many troops that worked for me go to CM and get a BCD and 6 months in the Brig for doing the samething he did with Monica L. He got into no trouble. But when you look at all the Graphs of what country looked like during his time. We were in great shape. Unlike some of you, i dont wast my time researching to find some smart quote to use out of some political bible that is only as good as you think the person that wrote it is... Obama will do just fine if he wins. 1 person does not run the country, for that fact 100 people dont. It wont matter who wins the big chair... if Congress and the rest of them dont agree to put our country first and what is needed, then nothing will ever be correct. Or we can keep writting checks to bail out CEO's who run their company into the dirt so they can keep their retreats,, Rolls, Benz's, Porche's and so on. if you bail out a company, at least confiscate their belongins to sell off to cover the some of the deal. Just a THOUGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

Here's McCain . . . Mr. Deregulation!

http://orlando.craigslist.org/pol/844908421.html



Sigh.

[Guest]

I dont see how anyone dont understand that the last 8 years were not the result of the Demo's. i watched a Repbulican from VA on TV lastnight do everything he could besides take responsibility that the GW administration has really put us in a hole. McCain has danced from one thing to the other, yes we need bailouts,, no we dont, oh wait yes we do.... I am a registered Rep. i hated Bill Clinton.. i had many troops that worked for me go to CM and get a BCD and 6 months in the Brig for doing the samething he did with Monica L. He got into no trouble. But when you look at all the Graphs of what country looked like during his time. We were in great shape. Unlike some of you, i dont wast my time researching to find some smart quote to use out of some political bible that is only as good as you think the person that wrote it is... Obama will do just fine if he wins. 1 person does not run the country, for that fact 100 people dont. It wont matter who wins the big chair... if Congress and the rest of them dont agree to put our country first and what is needed, then nothing will ever be correct. Or we can keep writting checks to bail out CEO's who run their company into the dirt so they can keep their retreats,, Rolls, Benz's, Porche's and so on. if you bail out a company, at least confiscate their belongins to sell off to cover the some of the deal. Just a THOUGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq115/cologal_223/applause-done.gif

[Guest]

...
The lobbyists wrote the bankruptcy laws to force people to pay even if they could not. But now who is lining up with the hands out and who is going to pay?

...

I'm having a hard time finding the difference of the Fed's action with AIG, the S&Ls a few years back and a couple other such instances, with when the Fed also provided bail-out loans for New York City and everything done by FEMA (which is itself a "bail-out" agency) and the Army Corps of Engineers because people insist on not adequately insuring their property and provide for the most basic of self-protection. We elect follk to make decisions for us as to whether the public good is taken care of by applying money to the wound, as opposed to preferential treatment to a specific person or group. If we are not satisfied with the elected folk's judgment, that's why we have periodic elections. However, the factors for what constitutes public good has gotten applied pretty much the same over the years, political party notwithstanding.

Bankruptcy laws are "forcing people to pay" debts which arise from taxes, obtaining money or credit by false pretenses, fraud or embezzlement, alimony and child support, willful injury to someone or their property, a fine, an educational loan, or a debt which they failed to list. Also, if the debt is secured by collateral (e.g., car loan) and the debtor wants to keep the collateral, then the debt is reaffirmed. That's really not draconian.