OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 5

[Teal]

Just saw Palin on Foxnews at lunchtime and she is still saying
"Obama voted to raise taxes 94 times"

*sigh*

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... more-23411

"–53 were votes on budget resolutions or amendments that "could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes," though many "were clear statements of approval for increased taxes"
–23 were against proposed tax cuts
–11 were to increase taxes on people making more than $1 million a year, to help fund programs such as Head Start, school nutrition, or veterans' health care
–Seven were "for measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals."
– The total includes multiple votes on the same measures.

Verdict:
Misleading. McCain's summary ignores the fact that some of the votes were for measures to lower taxes for many Americans, while increasing them for a much smaller number of taxpayers. A nonpartisan examination also finds that the 94 total includes multiple votes on the same measures and budget votes that would not directly lead to higher taxes."

Jack...never mind, bro. Broken record...

[Jackdog]

Another idiot speaks for Obama.



http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/po ... htm?page=0

"Obama is about change," Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. "And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it."

Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, "just a supporter." But he adds that Obama has been "a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family." Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle.

"We helped him start his career," says Jackson. "And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged."

Will Obama's election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding.

"No, that chapter won't be closed," he says. "However, Obama's victory will be a huge step in the direction we have wanted America to take for decades."

Jackson rejects any suggestion that Obama was influenced by Marxist ideas in his youth. "I see no evidence of that," he says. "Obama's thirst for justice and equality is rooted in his black culture."

But is Obama - who's not a descendant of slaves - truly a typical American black?Jackson emphatically answers yes: "You don't need to be a descendant of slaves to experience the oppression, the suffocating injustice and the ugly racism that exists in our society," he says. "Obama experienced the same environment as all American blacks did. It was nonsense to suggest that he was somehow not black enough to feel the pain."

Is Jackson worried about the "Bradley effect" - that people may be telling pollsters they favor the black candidate, but won't end up voting for him?

"I don't think this is how things will turn out," he says. "We have a collapsing economy and a war that we have lost in Iraq. In Afghanistan, we face a resurgent Taliban. New threats are looming in Pakistan. Our liberties have been trampled under feet . . . Today, most Americans want change, and know that only Barack can deliver what they want.

Young Americans are especially determined to make sure that Obama wins."
"Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss," Jackson says. "Barack will change that," because, as long as the Palestinians haven't seen justice, the Middle East will "remain a source of danger to us all."

"Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims," Jackson says. "Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith."

[Teal]

The whole thing about redistribution of wealth is a lie.



Where you get stuck on is the premise that he's taxing the rich to make-up for the lower income tax cuts. That's how he would pay for it. That's different from taxing the rich and giving it to the poor.

No it isn't. How many ways can you interpret Obama's words to that plumber? "I want to spread the wealth around". R-E-D-I-S-T-R-I-B-U-T-I-O-N O-F W-E-A-L-T-H. Of course, Obama (and you) can continue to talk around it so much that the truth at the center gets lost in the rhetoric, and that happens with so much success that there isn't a politician alive who doesn't use it. (Yes, even the 'straight talk' express )

Calling it anything BUT redistribution of wealth is a lie. Unless you call it socialism-that's shorter and even MORE to the point...

[FatPitcher]

And like I said to JRod, their policies are windows into their souls (to the extent that as politicians they have souls). McCain's is center-right with all sorts of odd permutations and sell outs to both sides that matches his pragmatic background. Obama's is a classic leftist redistribution of wealth couched in terms that make him appear to be a DLC-sanctioned centrist. These are the men on the ballot in their undiluted forms...for better or worse.

Windows into their souls? The whole thing about redistribution of wealth is a lie.

1) Under the article and that tax site, if we take the graphs at face value, we currently give some money back on people that pay no taxes. This appears to be happening now. And in both plans it appears to be reduced. Of course, I'm not an economist so I can't go through every bracket and permutation of tax credits.

The statatory tax is the max you can pay but with all the credits and incentives, earners might not pay that much. Your tax liability under McCain stays relatively the same except for tax cuts in the higher brackets the incentive for health care deductions. The marginal tax *may* increase under Obama's plan according to the sources you list. But the statatory tax would decrease.

Where you get stuck on is the premise that he's taxing the rich to make-up for the lower income tax cuts. That's how he would pay for it. That's different from taxing the rich and giving it to the poor. Their tax liability would be less.

I'll try to explain this in words you will understand:

This is crazy talk to begin with lacking facts. Also your opinion is not valid.

If you have tax credits and you pay tax you get credit for the tax you pay but if you paid less than you get back then you get money. Then when taxes go up on you if you are making more money then you deduct something and you are making less and people who pay less are making more. So when you make less but make more after taxes and you make less if you make more, then you dont want to work because when you make money you get taxed more.

2) When the money that is taxed when you make more goes to people who make less to help them make more you are spreading the wealth around which is socialism,

And people now who make less money do get money back sometimes from the government in re fund checks for their taxes it's called credit for work income. And those people now would get bigger checks for their tax work credit income. Which means that there is more redistributi of income from the people who make more money to the people who make less money so the people with more money but now less money have less money to use to hire the people with less money but now more money because the people with less money but now more money make less money when they make more.

So basically you are lying that there is not redistribution of wealth.

[wco81]

Are there any tax increases which are not "redistribution of wealth?"

Even if those "increases" consist of letting the tax cut provisions sunset as originally drafted?

Why did Bush and the Republicans agree to a sunset provision in the first place?

Why didn't they remove that provision or make the tax cuts permanent when they had a chance?

[Teal]

Are there any tax increases which are not "redistribution of wealth?"

Even if those "increases" consist of letting the tax cut provisions sunset as originally drafted?

Why did Bush and the Republicans agree to a sunset provision in the first place?

Why didn't they remove that provision or make the tax cuts permanent when they had a chance?

Any 'targeted' tax increase at the rich, which is the core of Obama's entire plan, is a redistribution of wealth.

The only tax plan that makes a lick of common sense is this one:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

[FatPitcher]

Are there any tax increases which are not "redistribution of wealth?"

Even if those "increases" consist of letting the tax cut provisions sunset as originally drafted?

Why did Bush and the Republicans agree to a sunset provision in the first place?

Why didn't they remove that provision or make the tax cuts permanent when they had a chance?

Some tax increases are not blatant redistribution of wealth, as they hike taxes across a large range of people and aren't paired with giveaways for people who don't pay income taxes.

Like I've said before, I'm not against tax hikes as long as they are fair and necessary and the money is spent wisely.

But if we really do need to raise taxes, then why are we giving money away to large groups of people? It's not a tax cut if you don't pay taxes already; it's welfare. And even if it were a tax cut, what's the rationale for cutting taxes when they need to be raised? If it's to help the economy, why give money to unproductive people while taking it from productive people and employers? How does that help the economy? And if they don't need to be raised, why are they being raised for some people other than to achieve the goal of "spreading the wealth around"?

As for the other questions, I think the sunset provision was designed to hide the long-term cost of the cuts, delaying the hard decision on what to do with the tax cuts and the deficit until the next president's term while allowing sunny budget projections that all assume the cuts will expire.

[Teal]

It's old, I know...but the tune is still being played...

[pk500]

The only tax plan that makes a lick of common sense is this one:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I beg to differ:

http://www.lp.org/issues/taxes



Take care,
PK

[FatPitcher]

The only tax plan that makes a lick of common sense is this one:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I beg to differ:

http://www.lp.org/issues/taxes



Take care,
PK

But the fact is, every service supplied by the government can be provided better and cheaper by private business.

I don't think a private justice system would be all that great, myself.

[Teal]

The only tax plan that makes a lick of common sense is this one:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I beg to differ:

http://www.lp.org/issues/taxes



Take care,
PK

Okay...so there's two that make a lick of sense...

But my man Boortz supports the Fair Tax, so in effect, both are libertarian ideas-and both very good...

[wco81]

The fair tax proposals will never get anywhere. Advocates need to explain what is the economic argument for switching from progressive to a regressive tax system which I believe no other G7 nation uses.

The Bush tax cuts lower the top two rates the most. While it may not seem "fair" that the top two brackets are due for an increase, it's letting them sunset or revert to their prior rates.


Here's a good comparison by the Economist, which touches a bit on the tax credits (but thinks it's a minor factor compared to all the other fiscal and economic issues which will confront the new POTUS):


http://www.economist.com/displaystory.c ... d=12321597

[Jackdog]

The only tax plan that makes a lick of common sense is this one:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I beg to differ:

http://www.lp.org/issues/taxes



Take care,
PK

Hooah.

[RobVarak]

Are there any tax increases which are not "redistribution of wealth?"

Even if those "increases" consist of letting the tax cut provisions sunset as originally drafted?

Why did Bush and the Republicans agree to a sunset provision in the first place?

Why didn't they remove that provision or make the tax cuts permanent when they had a chance?

They are all redistributions of wealth, but the difference between Obama's plan and the 21st c. tax strucutre is their fundamental philosophy.

Most post-Great Society politicians believe that taxes should be imposed only to provide the revenues necessary to run a government. They should not be used in and of themeselves to redistribute wealth from producers to consumers.

Now obviously there are acres of ground in between those two extremes, but when you start talking about welfare, entitlements and "making sure that everyone behind you has a chance" with your tax dollars, it's a lot closer to the latter than the former.

FP's correct about the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts. Much as with the "repeal" of the Federal Estate Tax, the provision had to be added to win enough votes for passage. Given their relatively slim majorities, they never really had a realistic chance to make the cuts permanent in either case.

[RobVarak]

The only tax plan that makes a lick of common sense is this one:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I beg to differ:

http://www.lp.org/issues/taxes



Take care,
PK

Hooah.

But the fact is, every service supplied by the government can be provided better and cheaper by private business.

I admire the sentiment, but statements like that are why the LP remains fundamentally unserious. That's just assinine.

Hell Bob Barr didn't even get the NRA endsorsement despite being on their Board of Directors LOL

But they're spunky, and unlike Lou Grant...I like it

[Jackdog]

Rhetoric vs Facts. Both tax plans are discussed.

Bob Beckel,Geraldine Ferrero,Michael Steele and Hannity.


http://townhall.com/video/FoxNews/2176_ ... lans_B1200

[pk500]

I don't think a private justice system would be all that great, myself.

It worked for him:



Take care,
PK

[Teal]

I don't think a private justice system would be all that great, myself.

It worked for him:



Take care,
PK

To quote Jackdiggity...hooah!

[JRod]

Rob,

They are all redistributions of wealth, but the difference between Obama's plan and the 21st c. tax strucutre is their fundamental philosophy.

You can only guess what's in his mind. So the difference between "most post- Great Society politicians, is your take what's really in Obama's mind.

You frankly don't know.

Anyway back to the tax debate. You start out saying that it's a welfare state tax policy, then you cite where the author says it's recaptured, now it's a redistribution of wealth.

Round and round we go...

I take issue solely with the welfare state comment.

1) The author improperly surmises that Obama's tax policy is just shifting the burden from Middle Class to the lower class. You bought that line hook line and sinker. He could have very well said, the tax breaks will come directly from the increase to the upper two brackets.

Okay fine but we aren't creating a welfare state. We are not giving people free money who are not paying taxes as your original post claimed. I don't really care how you want to classify how Obama is going to pay for the middle-class tax cuts. All I know is his tax cuts are not creating a welfare tax system.

2) I couldn't respond earlier before I could find other sources of information. Their numbers find 1 in 7 households would pay higher marginal taxes. Statutory rates would be decreased for bottom 3-4 brackets.

Read the last paragraph higher than the current tax cuts but lower than the existing law. Most economists say that the Bush tax cuts did not work and were misguided.

Finally, and personally mind you, I think Obama's tax cuts are pay-go like tax cuts. He has paid for them by increasing the rates in the upper two brackets.

With the FY09 budget that was just calculated, we had around a 480 billion deficit. The largest in US history. All if not most economists, say there's no way Obama or McCain can extend tax cuts, fund the war, the rescue/bail-out, and maintain spending at its current level. That means either higher taxes or not funding other, possibly critical programs. I believe cutting all earmarks would only take us to the 400b mark.

I think that's the story and that was the first question both dodged by McCaina and Obama in the first debate.

From the Brookings Institute
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploaded ... posals.pdf

Two plans side by side
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopic ... matrix.cfm

The tax proposals of both presidential candidates would alter effective marginal tax rates
in complicated ways. Senator McCain’s plan would—among other things—reduce
statutory rates, increase the dependent exemption, and raise the AMT exemption level. In
addition to also changing statutory rates and raising the AMT exemption, Senator Obama
would modify existing deductions and tax credits and introduce several new ones. The
numerous phase-ins and phaseouts that these credits entail would affect marginal rates,
lowering them for some taxpayers and raising them for others.

Overall, the Obama plan would lower effective marginal tax rates for the majority
of households. In 2009, only about 1 in 7 households would see an increase in their
marginal rate. Only at the top of the income distribution—households making at least
$500,000 a year—would a majority of taxpayers face higher rates. Obama’s plan would
leave the average marginal rate on wages and salaries for the economy as a whole
unchanged at 24 percent in 2009. In that same year, close to 80 percent of the population
would see no change in their marginal rates under Senator McCain’s plan and most other
tax units would face lower rates; only about 1 percent of households would experience a
marginal rate increase under the fully phased in McCain plan. Overall, Senator McCain’s
plan would reduce the average marginal tax rate on wages and salaries by about 1
percentage point, to 23 percent in 2009.

Senator Obama’s proposal would result in an average marginal tax rate of 25
percent on wages and salaries in 2012, lower than under current law but higher than if the
tax cuts are extended. Because Obama would leave the top two statutory rates at 36 and
39.6 percent and reinstate PEP and Pease, taxpayers with more than $1 million in income
would face an average marginal rate of 40 percent, 6 percentage points higher than under
the McCain plan. Overall, because it would extend all of the individual income tax
components of the 2001–06 cuts and increase the dependent exemption, the McCain plan
would lower the average EMTR for all households slightly relative to a tax cuts extended
baseline and significantly compared with current law.

[/url]

[JRod]

I'll try to explain this in words you will understand:

This is crazy talk to begin with lacking facts. Also your opinion is not valid.

If you have tax credits and you pay tax you get credit for the tax you pay but if you paid less than you get back then you get money. Then when taxes go up on you if you are making more money then you deduct something and you are making less and people who pay less are making more. So when you make less but make more after taxes and you make less if you make more, then you dont want to work because when you make money you get taxed more.

2) When the money that is taxed when you make more goes to people who make less to help them make more you are spreading the wealth around which is socialism,

And people now who make less money do get money back sometimes from the government in re fund checks for their taxes it's called credit for work income. And those people now would get bigger checks for their tax work credit income. Which means that there is more redistributi of income from the people who make more money to the people who make less money so the people with more money but now less money have less money to use to hire the people with less money but now more money because the people with less money but now more money make less money when they make more.

So basically you are lying that there is not redistribution of wealth.

So if your theory was true, Warren Buffet would rather be poor get his welfare check/tax refund then make what he's earning.

You sentence in your last paragraph isn't even coherent.

If you make more money you will pay more in taxes unless there are some marginal tax policies to offset those taxes. If you make 30000 and fit into the 2 second bracket you are going to make less and pay less than the 5 bracket. That's the rules. I am going to pay more in taxes if I make more.

But the only part in Obama's plan that targets the lowest income is the "Make Work Pay" which would give 6.2 percent refund on about $8100 income. This could potentially eliminate taxes for the lowest quintile. What I'm not sure about is whether or now all persons would qualify for this refund. Remember with taxes you play as you enter in the tax brackets. 10% up to $8025, then 15% from 8025 to 32550. This is the statutory rate we are talking about. When Obama says 95% percent of people would receive a tax cut, he is probably talking that your first 8025 earned income will receive a refund except for the highest two brackets.

[RobVarak]

Okay fine but we aren't creating a welfare state. We are not giving people free money who are not paying taxes as your original post claimed.

Dude, WTF?

Yes, we are. Given the projections in the TF article 44% of households will pay no income tax and receive a rebate check. This has been stated bout 10 times in the last day. Even if you give them a fudge factor of 20% that's still a lot of free cash for somebody.

1) The author improperly surmises that Obama's tax policy is just shifting the burden from Middle Class to the lower class. You bought that line hook line and sinker. He could have very well said, the tax breaks will come directly from the increase to the upper two brackets.

Well apparently The Tax Policy Center study that you cited swallowed it hook line and sinker as well:

As in 2009, about 15 percent of households would see an increase in their EMTR. Households in the $30,000 - $50,000 and $75,000 to $200,000 income ranges would be the most likely to face an increased EMTR.

Yep, he's really sticking it to those rich bastards hauling in $45,000.00 a year!

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that $30-$50k is not one of the upper two brackets.

But hey, if you want to maintain your Robin Hood illusions go ahead.

And for the love of God, please spell check your posts. Please?

[GameSeven]

So if your theory was true, Warren Buffet would rather be poor get his welfare check/tax refund then make what he's earning.

That is not true. It's not Warren Buffett's incentive that is of concern. He might question, for similar reasons offered by FP and Rob, why his taxes should be raised in the manner in which they are to be distributed. The disincetives are on those mostly benefiting from the subsidies at the low end of the scale.

You sentence in your last paragraph isn't even coherent.

[Teal]

\

You sentence in your last paragraph isn't even coherent.

[FatPitcher]

You sentence in your last paragraph isn't even coherent.

Argh. Even the jokes go over his head.

[JackB1]

Just saw Palin on Foxnews at lunchtime and she is still saying
"Obama voted to raise taxes 94 times"

*sigh*

Let's make a deal. The McCain camp will stop saying that if Obama backs off his equally 'misleading' premise that he will cut taxes for 95%.

Work for you?

I just wish they would all tell the 100% TRUTH and stop these stretches.
It makes the debates and stump speeches meaningless drivel.