OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 5

[RobVarak]

Are you seriously going to argue that Congress shares equal responsibility with the Executive Branch for regulatory responsibilities? Because if you are, the Legislative Branch may need to start building up agencies to mirror those in the Executive Branch.

No. I'm just pointing out the political hypocrisy of running on a platform of oversight and change and implementing a policy of maintaining the status quo of corruption and uselessness.

I don't think Congress has equal responsibility, but the Executive agencies are not solely responsible either. Congress has some exposure here, as demonstrated by the embarassing F&F hearing video demonstrates.

[JRod]

WSJ picks up on the horse that I've beaten to death...and punted up and down DSP's Main St. for about 6 weeks now. But it's fundamental both to the Obama's economic "plan" and the audaciousness of his dishonesty. Why, it's worthy of a Daley...

Emphasis is mine, and it was hard to know where to stop.

Obama's 95% Illusion
It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers.
Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.

There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

It's the very embodiment of Obamanism:

Couch a classic and oft-rejected far-Left liberal plan in centrist terms and deliver with rhetorical aplomb. Mix that with a bit of racial criticism of those opposing it and you have Barack Brownies suitable for eating now and feeling sick over later. Pay no attention to the soux chefs from days gone by, the executive chef didn't know they liked such recipes, or he didn't know who they were, or it's "guilt by association," whatever. Shut up and eat!!

The Big Lie: Alive and well.

Sorry Rob but that article was pretty poor. It says that people aren't receiving a tax cut but it doesn't address the middle class tax cut instead it goes on a rant about handouts.

I kind expect smarter well-thought links to articles without come serious flaw in logic from you Rob.

[JRod]

That's 5 attacks with littlel or no response from Clinton.

Since 9/11 and no other attacks in 7 yrs, Al Qaeda’s top people are captured, dead or on the run. An independent study shows that deaths from terrorism have actually declined by more than 40 percent since 2001 around the world.

The violence in Iraq and Afghanisan along with Spain, the UK, Thailand don't count?

Or just violence against America? Then that violence in Iraq and Afghanistan don't count because it's a war.

The studies you cite change the classification of terrorism. So any terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't really classified as terrorism. It's actually higher and more centrally located. It's just not called terrorism anymore.

[matthewk]

What is the perc. of people that actually pay their taxes? I thought it was something like 80%. That number should be 100%.

According to talk radio on right now, around one-third does not pay federal income taxes. One of our local talk programs is discussing the WSJ article Rob posted.

[GTHobbes]

What is the perc. of people that actually pay their taxes? I thought it was something like 80%. That number should be 100%.

According to talk radio on right now, around one-third does not pay federal income taxes. One of our local talk programs is discussing the WSJ article Rob posted.

If this information is to be believed, the percentage of Americans who did not pay federal income tax hovered between 23%-25% during the Clinton years. That number has apparently gone up to 38% on Bush's watch. Thanks again, W.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared ... _no_i.html

[JackB1]

Except interest rates are low right now, not high.

And once again it must be said, Bush is not solely responsible for the economic mess we are in now.

He might as well claim he saw this coming, since he's pretty much been full of hot gas on global warming.

It's not a "claim". The article was written July 2000.

I'm not even going to debate you on global warming, since you are already discounting it just because Gore is it's "spokesman". I guess the world's leading scientists all have a political agenda as well? http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302 ... ing02.html

[JackB1]

That's 5 attacks with littlel or no response from Clinton.

Since 9/11 and no other attacks in 7 yrs, Al Qaeda’s top people are captured, dead or on the run. An independent study shows that deaths from terrorism have actually declined by more than 40 percent since 2001 around the world.

The violence in Iraq and Afghanisan along with Spain, the UK, Thailand don't count?

Or just violence against America? Then that violence in Iraq and Afghanistan don't count because it's a war.

The studies you cite change the classification of terrorism. So any terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't really classified as terrorism. It's actually higher and more centrally located. It's just not called terrorism anymore.

Funny. This study shows a dramatic increase:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... a_map.html
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... index.html

[JackB1]

What is the perc. of people that actually pay their taxes? I thought it was something like 80%. That number should be 100%.

According to talk radio on right now, around one-third does not pay federal income taxes. One of our local talk programs is discussing the WSJ article Rob posted.

That is a crime. I wonder how many billions this loses us every year? This really makes the argument stronger for the "fair tax" on all purchases. Here's another idea....remove the taxes on all basic needs items (food, gas, clothing) and raise it on "luxury" items (multiple homes, yahts, vacations, etc).

[fsquid]

The Howard Stern show this morning was golden

[FatPitcher]

What is the perc. of people that actually pay their taxes? I thought it was something like 80%. That number should be 100%.

According to talk radio on right now, around one-third does not pay federal income taxes. One of our local talk programs is discussing the WSJ article Rob posted.

That is a crime. I wonder how many billions this loses us every year? This really makes the argument stronger for the "fair tax" on all purchases. Here's another idea....remove the taxes on all basic needs items (food, gas, clothing) and raise it on "luxury" items (multiple homes, yahts, vacations, etc).

I think there should be some government assistance programs that are opt-in. If you choose to receive them, you give up your right to vote in federal elections for 2 years. You want to be taken care of, you give power to the people taking care of you.

[Teal]

According to talk radio on right now, around one-third does not pay federal income taxes. One of our local talk programs is discussing the WSJ article Rob posted.

That is a crime. I wonder how many billions this loses us every year? This really makes the argument stronger for the "fair tax" on all purchases. Here's another idea....remove the taxes on all basic needs items (food, gas, clothing) and raise it on "luxury" items (multiple homes, yahts, vacations, etc).

I think there should be some government assistance programs that are opt-in. If you choose to receive them, you give up your right to vote in federal elections for 2 years. You want to be taken care of, you give power to the people taking care of you.

THAT'S RACIST! THAT'S DISENFRANCHISEMENT! THAT'S BIGOTED! THAT'S....

That's actually a pretty good idea. The only problem with that is that those people want to live under dad's roof, eat dad's food, and drive dad's car, and yet still have a say in the decisions dad makes.

[wco81]

The Howard Stern show this morning was golden

The wedding talk?

[RobVarak]

Sorry Rob but that article was pretty poor. It says that people aren't receiving a tax cut but it doesn't address the middle class tax cut instead it goes on a rant about handouts.

I kind expect smarter well-thought links to articles without come serious flaw in logic from you Rob.

I'm not sure that I understand your criticism.

The entire article is essentially about the "middle class tax cut." The point is that the handouts and "credits" swallow the cut whole, as demonstrated by discussion of the marginal tax rates. It also points out that that cut will require a huge tax increase on the other 5% and raises the fundamental question of how you cut taxes when a large percentage of that magical 95% already pays no tax.

Here is the chart that accompanies the article, which should make that portion of the discussion a bit clearer.



Obama is essentially masking enormous tax increases inside the rhetoric of tax cuts.

And that's even before we get to the gibberish he was spewing in the last debate about taxing businesses. I can't believe he got a free pass from the pundits after clearly looking foolish, particularly the nonsense about how "very few" small businesses make over $250,000.00.

It's one thing for a liberal to say, "I support Obama because he's going to raise taxes, spend it where appropriate and improve the way government works." That's a politically and logically defensible position. It's another for a voter to support the guy because they believe he's going to meaningfully ease the tax burden on Americans. That is simply not the case. Hoodwinking and bamboozling gone mainstream and big time.

[matthewk]

I'm not even going to debate you on global warming, since you are already discounting it just because Gore is it's "spokesman". I guess the world's leading scientists all have a political agenda as well? http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302 ... ing02.html

You say you're not going to debate me, then you start debating the issue. I won't take this thread off on that track. I just want to state that my views on global warming have nothing to do with what Al Gore says.

[matthewk]

If this information is to be believed, the percentage of Americans who did not pay federal income tax hovered between 23%-25% during the Clinton years. That number has apparently gone up to 38% on Bush's watch. Thanks again, W.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared ... _no_i.html

And if Obama is elected, with his "tax cuts" it will rise even further. And those paying no taxes will get welfa...um tax credit checks.

[Leebo33]

What is the perc. of people that actually pay their taxes? I thought it was something like 80%. That number should be 100%.

According to talk radio on right now, around one-third does not pay federal income taxes. One of our local talk programs is discussing the WSJ article Rob posted.

If this information is to be believed, the percentage of Americans who did not pay federal income tax hovered between 23%-25% during the Clinton years. That number has apparently gone up to 38% on Bush's watch. Thanks again, Wl

Yeah, I'm pissed at W.

As your first link points out, "Broadly speaking, the 42.5 million zero-tax filers are: low-income, young, female-headed households, part-time workers, and beneficiaries of the $1,000 per-child tax credit or the Earned Income Credit." I hate those f*cking freeriders too!

[JackB1]

And if Obama is elected, with his "tax cuts" it will rise even further. And those paying no taxes will get welfa...um tax credit checks.

So if McCain is elected, all these slackers are going to suddenly start paying their taxes ? Actually, since the lower classes are supposed to pay 3 times more taxes under McCain's plan as opposed to Obama's, the amount of unpaid taxes will increase under McCain more than Obama. What I would like is to see one of the candidates come up with a solution to this unpaid tax problem.

[pk500]

What I would like is to see one of the candidates come up with a solution to this unpaid tax problem.

Simple -- drastically cut government spending, something neither Obama or McCain will do.

Take care,
PK

[FatPitcher]

And if Obama is elected, with his "tax cuts" it will rise even further. And those paying no taxes will get welfa...um tax credit checks.

So if McCain is elected, all these slackers are going to suddenly start paying their taxes ? Actually, since the lower classes are supposed to pay 3 times more taxes under McCain's plan as opposed to Obama's, the amount of unpaid taxes will increase under McCain more than Obama. What I would like is to see one of the candidates come up with a solution to this unpaid tax problem.

I think you misunderstand the nature of the problem. It's not that people owe taxes and aren't coughing up the dough; they simply by law do not owe taxes. There was a long discussion about this in one of the earlier politics threads, where I threw some data around on who actually pays for government.

[bdunn13]

Simple -- drastically cut government spending, something neither Obama or McCain will do.

Take care,
PK

Agreed. The fools in Washington tax us to death, take a cut for themselves, waste some, let some get stolen along the way and gives us back whats left in the form of pork and social programs. They do this while acting like they are giving us something. The government has NEVER given anyone anything. All they do is take.....

Some people think you can tax corporations and it won't effect the middle class. EVERY tax in this country taxes the middle class as we are the spenders and backbone of the entire country. If you tax corporations then they will either pass the tax onto their customers(the middle class) or their earnings will not meet expectations. When this happens, their shares will be reflected which in turn will cause all of those 401Ks to drop and the market in general to go down... effecting our retirement(the middle class).

They will respond in turn by either sending jobs over seas or by laying people off... Either way the middle class will be effected. The size of our federal government needs to drastically be cut yet both of these candidates want to increase the size.


I think if Ross Perot were running this year, he could get 30% of the popular vote while maybe even taking a state or two.

[RobVarak]

Incidentally, I think that those of you arguing about who "doesn't pay taxes" may be talking past each other a bit.

That number is addressing not those who are evading taxes, but those who do not need to pay taxes given the paucity of their income.

Edit----

Sorry, didn't see FP's earlier post.

[JackB1]

Incidentally, I think that those of you arguing about who "doesn't pay taxes" may be talking past each other a bit.

That number is addressing not those who are evading taxes, but those who do not need to pay taxes given the paucity of their income.

Edit----

Sorry, didn't see FP's earlier post.

I was specifically referring to those who "evade" their taxes.

[Naples39]

Sorry Rob but that article was pretty poor. It says that people aren't receiving a tax cut but it doesn't address the middle class tax cut instead it goes on a rant about handouts.

I kind expect smarter well-thought links to articles without come serious flaw in logic from you Rob.

That's not a flaw in logic. The name of the article is that Obama's claim of tax cuts 95% is an illusion, and provides clear evidence that many of those people will know get a check instead of simply paying no taxes. That's not a 'tax cut' in any sense. Just because the credits may functionally lower taxes for other middle class taxpayers is completely irrelevant to the article's point.

I have to say, I am SHOCKED that many news outlets who after every debate 'fact check' the debate and find essentially every republican claim 'misleading' never even bothered to check one of the biggest stretches that has been repeated in both debates.

[XXXIV]

I have to say, I am SHOCKED :

Why?...The media has a dog in the fight.

[Naples39]

I have to say, I am SHOCKED :

Why?...The media has a dog in the fight.

I was trying to be sarcastic.