Change? Can we afford it?

Discussion in 'Congress' started by jreeves, Sep 14, 2008.

  1. jreeves
    Offline

    jreeves Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,588
    Thanks Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +315
    Obama's change could cost big bucks | Philadelphia Inquirer | 09/14/2008
    So what does Obama propose? To be sure, he does have a few tax cuts aimed at middle- and low-income Americans sprinkled through his plan. His "Making Work Pay" credit would offset payroll taxes on the first $8,100 of earnings, generating savings of up to $500 per person or $1,000 per family. His campaign says that will eliminate income taxes for 10 million low-income Americans.

    But we already have the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income wage earners. The IRS estimates that nearly one-third of EITC payments - more than $10 billion annually - now are wasted in overpayments. Is it really wise to create an entire and complicated new credit that would be subject to the same abuses?

    Obama's small tax cuts would have a negligible effect on our economy because of their indirect and minimal effect on economically productive behavior. His tax increases, however, are something else again and seem likely to have a significant, negative effect on our nation's economic growth.The centerpiece of Obama's plan is to end the Bush tax cuts and allow the top two tax rates to return to 36 percent and 39.6 percent. He would also phase out personal exemptions and deductions for those with income in excess of $250,000.

    Again, with an eye toward punishing those who have achieved economic success, Obama plans to end the Social Security payroll-tax cap for those making more than $250,000. The cap is currently set at a more reasonable $102,000.

    Under Obama's plan, these individuals will face a tax rate of 15.65 percent from payroll taxes and the top income-tax rate of 39.6 percent for a combined top rate of more than 56 percent on each additional dollar earned.

    In a single stroke, Obama's massive payroll-tax increase abandons any pretext of Social Security's being "social insurance," as opposed to just another welfare program. It would massively expand government with almost no positive effect on Social Security's solvency.

    Obama's plan would keep Social Security in the black for only three more years. Annual deficits would hit in 2020, instead of 2017, and by the 2030s the system would still run an annual deficit exceeding $150 billion.

    As if those proposals were not enough to weigh the U.S. economy down, Obama plans to nearly double the top dividends and capital-gains rate from the current 15 percent rate to as high as 28 percent. Indeed, while most tax cuts may result in slight revenue declines even as they spur economic growth, Bush's dividend and capital gains tax cuts actually have increased federal revenue. Obama would be wise to reconsider these particularly destructive tax increases.

    On the other hand, Obama pledges to follow President Bush in rapidly increasing the size and scope of the federal government. Bush has allowed the federal budget to grow from 18.4 percent to 20 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. Former President Bill Clinton, on the other hand, oversaw a reduction of federal spending from 22.1 percent to 18.7 percent of GDP.

    Unfortunately for the U.S. economy, the likelihood of massive government expansion under Obama means that the only important "change" will be in the mechanism by which our ever-expanding government is funded.

    Great, more taxes and an ever expanding government, yipee!
     
  2. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    Getting out of Iraq will save us $200 billion dollars a year.

    Universal healthcare will save us another $200 billion a year.

    So we will save $1.6 billion dollars in Obama's first term.
     
  3. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    We have a $500 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT.

    The next president is going to have to raise taxes, thanks to fiscal irresponsiblity of George Bush and the Republican Party.
     
  4. jreeves
    Offline

    jreeves Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,588
    Thanks Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +315
    Wow...you say that Universal healthcare will save us 200 billion a year, really?

    They can't both be right--or can they? The health care plans proposed by Senators Clinton and Obama are similar in many ways, but they differ in several important respects. The Clinton plan "mandates" health insurance for everyone. The Obama plan requires that all children have insurance, and subsidizes health care for other Americans who are presently uninsured. Clinton estimates that her plan will cost in the region of $110 billion a year; Obama has put a $50 to $65 billion price tag on his proposals.

    Neither Clinton nor Obama are being fully candid about the gaps in their health care proposals. Neither plan truly provides for "universal" coverage, although Clinton's proposal probably comes somewhat closer to reaching this goal than Obama's. There are strengths, drawbacks, and loopholes to both plans. At this point, nobody knows how many uninsured they will include, but it will not 100 per cent. Much will depend on their ability to work with Congress once they are elected. If they were being honest with the voters, they would say that universal health care coverage is an aspiration, not a guarantee. Two Pinocchios apiece.


    Clinton vs. Obama on Health Care - Fact Checker

    So his plan will cost taxpayers by his own account 65 billion dollars, while it fails to even accomplish his goal of universal healthcare. Like I said big government with higher taxes.
     
  5. jreeves
    Offline

    jreeves Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,588
    Thanks Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +315
    The over 490 billion dollar deficit came while Democrats held the purse strings.
     
  6. jreeves
    Offline

    jreeves Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,588
    Thanks Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +315
    Getting out of Iraq prematurely will cost us more than 200 billion dollars a year if Iraq is unstable and a safe haven for terrorism.
     
  7. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    Chirs, Your absolutly wrong if you think that Universal Healthcare is going to somehow save the Federal Govt. 200 billion dollars. How much do you think the costs alone to administer a program like that are going to be? You think that Obama's plan to pay for it by his windfall profits tax on the oil companies is somehow going to pay for it all? Well your sadly mistaken, lets not forget that the tax he places on the oil companies goes directly to the consumer as does any rise in the cost of doing business for the oil industry be it a tax or a hurricane. Don't believe me on that one, ask the people on the gulf coast about that. Second You think by endind the war in Iraq, which he has stated on many occasions will now be 16 months at least will automatically shift that money to Universal Healthcare when he has also stated that he wishes to transfer those forces to Afghanistan? Want to see how well Universal Healthcare works, I have a link for you, this is the Mass. little gotcha when they found out how much they grossly underestimated the costs. So this savings your talking about is going to do nothing but add more of a burden to the federal budget on a massive scale. Further, Universal Healthcare will drive down the quality of Healthcare in this country, and take away incentives for companies that are in medical reasearch and development. These savings you speak of are a joke, what the Obama campaign likes to say is that because 47 million people are unisured it drives up the costs of healthcare. Lets look at it for a moment, subtract the 12 million illegal aliens that are in that number and now you have roughly 35 million people. So what do you do for them. It's simple provide tax incentives to businesses and tax credits for employer provided health insurance on people making less than 15,000.00 a year. This notion though that Universal Healthcare for all is somehow going to save this country money is a complete farce. Name me one govt. entitlement program that saves the country money? Point in fact none of them do, and what he is proposing is something along the lines of Social Security in size and scope. Social Security was and still is a vital program for the government, however if the percentages were 90% of the retirement age people had the means when Social Security was passed, then I rather doubt we would have it. So you need to take a look at the Obama plan once again and not just the *bullets*, because, I think more often than not on his social programs Obama forgets what type of country we live in and has been hanging around his socialist buddies too much.

    Cost of subsidized insurance program to double in Massachusetts - The Boston Globe
     
  8. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    Do you really think a company like walmart would follow your plan or that someone like McCain would have them provide tax incentives. They will just keep doing the same things they always have. For instance I worked at Kmart for four years and moved up to a level4 , 5 being manager and they would work me 40 hours for 5 weeks and then cut my hours back the six week so that way I would not qualify as a full time employee. Then one time I actually did and they came up with another loop hole. Please don't give me it was my choice to work there, I was twenty and was in college. Corporations will always come up with ways to not provide their employees with health insurance. And of those 30 million or so people you said how many are children?
     
  9. Caligirl
    Offline

    Caligirl Oh yes it is too!

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,567
    Thanks Received:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +240
    Firstly, we went into iraq out of fear (no wmd as it turns out) and you are advocating staying there - again out of fear.

    Second, we could pull out most of the troops and maintain intelligence and a presence and communications and so on. Getting out is not the end of the story, it is not cut and run, it is part of a strategy with the same goal as we have now, creating a stable iraq.

    Obama claims that removing troops (1-2 brigades per month) is his best judgment as to how to meet that goal.

    The Iraqi government and even Bush are opting into this strategy.

    The only one who isn't talking about troop withdrawals is McCain and Palin. THey are more interested in sounding tough than in sounding forward-thinking.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2008
  10. jreeves
    Offline

    jreeves Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,588
    Thanks Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +315
    Is this now Barack's position?

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHEIi4XKRmM]YouTube - The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand[/ame]
     

Share This Page