Nothing New but some thing it is.

[Navy1960]

When looking at policies proposed by candidates, many people are under the impression that the idea proposed are new or that the candidate is somehow doing something has not been tried before. So with that in mind I thought I would post the following;

He appointed a commission which set aside 3 million acres (12,000 km²) of national parks and 2.3 million acres (9,000 km²) of national forests; advocated tax reduction for low-income Americans (not enacted); closed certain tax loopholes for the wealthy; doubled the number of veteran's hospital facilities; negotiated a treaty on St. Lawrence Seaway (which failed in the U.S. Senate); wrote a Children's Charter that advocated protection of every child regardless of race or gender. Herbert Hoover

I thought it very interesting that Herbert Hoovers tax incentives were on the face quite like the one's Barack Obama is proposing. So as I have said before sometimes things that may be perceived as new are in fact not new.

 

[elvis]

When looking at policies proposed by candidates, many people are under the impression that the idea proposed are new or that the candidate is somehow doing something has not been tried before. So with that in mind I thought I would post the following;

He appointed a commission which set aside 3 million acres (12,000 km²) of national parks and 2.3 million acres (9,000 km²) of national forests; advocated tax reduction for low-income Americans (not enacted); closed certain tax loopholes for the wealthy; doubled the number of veteran's hospital facilities; negotiated a treaty on St. Lawrence Seaway (which failed in the U.S. Senate); wrote a Children's Charter that advocated protection of every child regardless of race or gender. Herbert Hoover

I thought it very interesting that Herbert Hoovers tax incentives were on the face quite like the one's Barack Obama is proposing. So as I have said before sometimes things that may be perceived as new are in fact not new.

either way, the tax incentives being proposed will not be enacted.

 

[Modbert]

When looking at policies proposed by candidates, many people are under the impression that the idea proposed are new or that the candidate is somehow doing something has not been tried before. So with that in mind I thought I would post the following;

He appointed a commission which set aside 3 million acres (12,000 km²) of national parks and 2.3 million acres (9,000 km²) of national forests; advocated tax reduction for low-income Americans (not enacted); closed certain tax loopholes for the wealthy; doubled the number of veteran's hospital facilities; negotiated a treaty on St. Lawrence Seaway (which failed in the U.S. Senate); wrote a Children's Charter that advocated protection of every child regardless of race or gender. Herbert Hoover

I thought it very interesting that Herbert Hoovers tax incentives were on the face quite like the one's Barack Obama is proposing. So as I have said before sometimes things that may be perceived as new are in fact not new.

What is interesting is everyone calling Obama a socialist. When he's not.

Two things:

1.) Obama will be raising the tax levels for the rich back to the Pre-Reagan levels. It wasn't socialism then or now.

2.) By definition, Taxes in general are socialist. Think about it for a minute here. You are getting money taken out of your income that is redistributed to things from roads to education to social programs.

So yeah, my two cents.

 

[elvis]

What is interesting is everyone calling Obama a socialist. When he's not.

Two things:

1.) Obama will be raising the tax levels for the rich back to the Pre-Reagan levels. It wasn't socialism then or now.

2.) By definition, Taxes in general are socialist. Think about it for a minute here. You are getting money taken out of your income that is redistributed to things from roads to education to social programs.

So yeah, my two cents.

pre-Reagan levels, are you sure that is the claim?

 

[WillowTree]

What is interesting is everyone calling Obama a socialist. When he's not.

Two things:

1.) Obama will be raising the tax levels for the rich back to the Pre-Reagan levels. It wasn't socialism then or now.

2.) By definition, Taxes in general are socialist. Think about it for a minute here. You are getting money taken out of your income that is redistributed to things from roads to education to social programs.

So yeah, my two cents.

no he's not a socialist, he's a marxist.

 

[Modbert]

pre-Reagan levels, are you sure that is the claim?

Here are the top marginal tax rates from 1955 - present.
1955-63 91% at 400K
1964 77% at 400K
1965-67 70% at 200K
1968 75.25% at 200K
1969 77% at 200K
1971-80 70% at 200K - 215.4K
1981 69.125% at 215.4K
1982-86 50% at 85.6K increasing to 175.25K
1987 38.5% at 90K
1988-90 28% at 29.75K - 32.45K
1991-92 31% at 82.15K and 86.5K
1993-00 39.6% at 89.15K - 288.35K
2001 39.1% at 297.35K
2002 38.6% at 307.05K
2003-09 35% at 311,05K - 372.95K

Well actually it was Clinton levels but they were even higher when Reagan was in office. So in reality, they are going back to the level of the years of 1987 and 1993-00.

 

[Navy1960]

What is interesting is everyone calling Obama a socialist. When he's not.

Two things:

1.) Obama will be raising the tax levels for the rich back to the Pre-Reagan levels. It wasn't socialism then or now.

2.) By definition, Taxes in general are socialist. Think about it for a minute here. You are getting money taken out of your income that is redistributed to things from roads to education to social programs.

So yeah, my two cents.

You know Robert, I started a thread today about that very same topic, socialist and socialism which no one ever responded to. So yes I tend to agree that a policy can be socialist in nature, and can while it can does not indicate a nature toward socialism without re typing the whole thread I posted.

 

[Modbert]

You know Robert, I started a thread today about that very same topic, socialist and socialism which no one ever responded to. So yes I tend to agree that a policy can be socialist in nature, and can while it can does not indicate a nature toward socialism without re typing the whole thread I posted.

Navy, go ahead and look at the tax rates above.

It's amazing how much the McCain campaign has spinned away from the truth. This is nothing new Barack Obama is doing.

Notice how under Reagan the rich from paying 69% to 28%.

Amazing isn't it? Not surprising though as I been saying this for weeks now.

 

[elvis]

Here are the top marginal tax rates from 1955 - present.
1955-63 91% at 400K
1964 77% at 400K
1965-67 70% at 200K
1968 75.25% at 200K
1969 77% at 200K
1971-80 70% at 200K - 215.4K
1981 69.125% at 215.4K
1982-86 50% at 85.6K increasing to 175.25K
1987 38.5% at 90K
1988-90 28% at 29.75K - 32.45K
1991-92 31% at 82.15K and 86.5K
1993-00 39.6% at 89.15K - 288.35K
2001 39.1% at 297.35K
2002 38.6% at 307.05K
2003-09 35% at 311,05K - 372.95K

Well actually it was Clinton levels but they were even higher when Reagan was in office. So in reality, they are going back to the level of the years of 1987 and 1993-00.

they were higher during his first term. they went down during his second.
what have you heard, seriously? what has obama said he will do with taxes?

 

[elvis]

Navy, go ahead and look at the tax rates above.

It's amazing how much the McCain campaign has spinned away from the truth. This is nothing new Barack Obama is doing.

Notice how under Reagan the rich from paying 69% to 28%.

Amazing isn't it? Not surprising though as I been saying this for weeks now.

no one should have to pay more than 50.

 

[Odd1_Out]

When looking at policies proposed by candidates, many people are under the impression that the idea proposed are new or that the candidate is somehow doing something has not been tried before. So with that in mind I thought I would post the following;

He appointed a commission which set aside 3 million acres (12,000 km²) of national parks and 2.3 million acres (9,000 km²) of national forests; advocated tax reduction for low-income Americans (not enacted); closed certain tax loopholes for the wealthy; doubled the number of veteran's hospital facilities; negotiated a treaty on St. Lawrence Seaway (which failed in the U.S. Senate); wrote a Children's Charter that advocated protection of every child regardless of race or gender. Herbert Hoover

I thought it very interesting that Herbert Hoovers tax incentives were on the face quite like the one's Barack Obama is proposing. So as I have said before sometimes things that may be perceived as new are in fact not new.

Hoover, also, had to deal with the effects Prohibition had on the economy, and didn't want to attempt any sweeping or extreme measures to correct the economy, which is why nothing he did worked.

Also, the Depression wasn't any one person's fault, and neither is the one we are in now. I just blame Bush because it helps my political party.

All politicians promise to lower taxes and reduce abuse of the numerous systems, whether or not it happens is dependent upon the candidate and circumstances.

Quit pretending we can typecast candidates. No president or administration will be exactly the same as another.

 

[Modbert]

they were higher during his first term. they went down during his second.
what have you heard, seriously? what has obama said he will do with taxes?

Raise from 35-39%.

Nobody is going to be paying more then 50%.

And Reagan has the most rich paying 28%, something is wrong with that picture.

 

[Modbert]

they were higher during his first term. they went down during his second.
what have you heard, seriously? what has obama said he will do with taxes?

Besides, why the fuck wasn't it called socialism when Bush 41 raised it from 28 to 31% in his term? Or Clinton called socialist when he raised it from 31 to 39%?

You want to know why? Because McCain is grasping for straws. He needs a miracle at the moment. Short of Jesus coming down from the heavens and giving his endorsement or a dead hooker showing up in Obama's trunk then McCain is in huge trouble.

 

[Navy1960]

Navy, go ahead and look at the tax rates above.

It's amazing how much the McCain campaign has spinned away from the truth. This is nothing new Barack Obama is doing.

Notice how under Reagan the rich from paying 69% to 28%.

Amazing isn't it? Not surprising though as I been saying this for weeks now.

You know Robert, I believe because I was alive then that the best thing that ever happened was Reagan lowering taxes. You know Reagan believed that government should not be the be all and end all to everyone's problems and that message somehow has gotten lost on both democrats and republicans. I will always advocate that raising the top rate during an economic downturn while increasing spending and with no clear policy for deficit reduction is disaster waiting to happen. While I will agree raising the top rate to 39% does not seem like much when compared to historical records but that is a ruse Robert. The factors I mentioned earlier are clearly not taken into consideration. You recall the Clinton era rise in taxes? Do you know what the name of that bill was? It was the "deficit reduction act" and it was enacted during a period of 8 consecutive quarters of growth in the economy. Then in 1997 it was followed by what? a tax reduction in cap gains that further stimulated the economy. I'm sorry Robert, but I cannot agree on a policy that advocates a rise in taxes on the top rate and at the same time is instituting 1 trillion dollars in new spending on top of the 1 trillion already authorized without deficit spending reduction.

 

[Navy1960]

Hoover, also, had to deal with the effects Prohibition had on the economy, and didn't want to attempt any sweeping or extreme measures to correct the economy, which is why nothing he did worked.

Also, the Depression wasn't any one person's fault, and neither is the one we are in now. I just blame Bush because it helps my political party.

All politicians promise to lower taxes and reduce abuse of the numerous systems, whether or not it happens is dependent upon the candidate and circumstances.

Quit pretending we can typecast candidates. No president or administration will be exactly the same as another.

You missed the entire point of the original post, the point was that policies that some think are new are not as new as some would think. Do I think Hoover was the single person responsible for the Great Depression, no. Do I think the tax policies of that Hoover instituted helped move the American economy towards the Depression , yes.

 

[Modbert]

You know Robert, I believe because I was alive then that the best thing that ever happened was Reagan lowering taxes. You know Reagan believed that government should not be the be all and end all to everyone's problems and that message somehow has gotten lost on both democrats and republicans. I will always advocate that raising the top rate during an economic downturn while increasing spending and with no clear policy for deficit reduction is disaster waiting to happen. While I will agree raising the top rate to 39% does not seem like much when compared to historical records but that is a ruse Robert. The factors I mentioned earlier are clearly not taken into consideration. You recall the Clinton era rise in taxes? Do you know what the name of that bill was? It was the "deficit reduction act" and it was enacted during a period of 8 consecutive quarters of growth in the economy. Then in 1997 it was followed by what? a tax reduction in cap gains that further stimulated the economy. I'm sorry Robert, but I cannot agree on a policy that advocates a rise in taxes on the top rate and at the same time is instituting 1 trillion dollars in new spending on top of the 1 trillion already authorized without deficit spending reduction.

Barack Obama stated tonight that the Gov't can't solve all it's problems alone. That the people need to be a part of it.

It isn't Barack's fault what the Bush administration did.

I ask you Navy, all these plans that McCain talks about. Where is the money coming from? The sky? No, the same place Obama would be getting the money.

McCain is going to support another package of $1 trillion so there is no difference here.

You want to know the problem though Navy? Who is the only president we've had a economy under that wasn't in massive debt but at the same time had a surplus? Bill Clinton.

Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 all follow the same economic concepts. As does McCain.

McCain knows nothing about the economy and that scares me.

Both videos were actually made by Republicans:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqGWTh_NZ-0]YouTube - John McCain Sheds Light on the Economy[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4czb_JFAXtk&feature=related]YouTube - Mccain is Dumb. He does not understand economics 101 ![/ame]

 

[Navy1960]

Barack Obama stated tonight that the Gov't can't solve all it's problems alone. That the people need to be a part of it.

It isn't Barack's fault what the Bush administration did.

I ask you Navy, all these plans that McCain talks about. Where is the money coming from? The sky? No, the same place Obama would be getting the money.

McCain is going to support another package of $1 trillion so there is no difference here.

You want to know the problem though Navy? Who is the only president we've had a economy under that wasn't in massive debt but at the same time had a surplus? Bill Clinton.

Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 all follow the same economic concepts. As does McCain.

McCain knows nothing about the economy and that scares me.

Both videos were actually made by Republicans:

YouTube - John McCain Sheds Light on the Economy

YouTube - Mccain is Dumb. He does not understand economics 101 !

You know Robert if Barack Obama was offering anything close to Clinton then I would be more open to it. However, my next statement on John McCain goes something like this, Thus the reason I am not voting for John McCain as well.

 

[WhiteLion]

Navy, go ahead and look at the tax rates above.

It's amazing how much the McCain campaign has spinned away from the truth. This is nothing new Barack Obama is doing.

Notice how under Reagan the rich from paying 69% to 28%.

Amazing isn't it? Not surprising though as I been saying this for weeks now.

Obamas spreading the Wealth program will do nothing but drive the rich to offshore accounts and live in their yachts in international waters then where in hell will Obama get his tax dollars huuuuuuuh? ah duh?? If you were rich and wealthy WTH would you do??? I know i wouldnt be hangin around to see some shyster take it and give it to some bums that didnt earn it...So throw all the statistics you can up but there baseless and irrelevant for 2004 to date... I have links proving that Clinton, Obama and the Democratic controlled congress was all but totally responsible for the current economic melt-down including high gas prices........ Spreading the wealth will only further the economic damage cause by the Democrats .. You jackup the rich and theyll jack you right back mark it down... Oups there goes another 1000 jobs to South Korea

 

[Modbert]

Obamas spreading the Wealth program will do nothing but drive the rich to offshore accounts and live in their yachts in international waters then where in hell will Obama get his tax dollars huuuuuuuh? ah duh?? If you were rich and wealthy WTH would you do??? I know i wouldnt be hangin around to see some shyster take it and give it to some bums that didnt earn it...So throw all the statistics you can up but there baseless and irrelevant for 2004 to date... I have links proving that Clinton, Obama and the Democratic controlled congress was all but totally responsible for the current economic melt-down including high gas prices........ Spreading the wealth will only further the economic damage cause by the Democrats

I love the part you bolded. The rich didn't do this for America's history for the most part. Besides, it's a raise from 35-39% which is once again around the levels of Clinton and Reagan.

By the way, love the amount of ignorance in your post. Not all taxes go to "bums that didn't earn it." Taxes also go to things like Education, roads and other public services,etc. Your ignorance astounds me.

And really, you have such BS links but don't post them? What Reagan did was spread the wealth for the rich, Obama wants to make it back to Clinton levels. And guess what? Under Clinton we had our biggest surplus in YEARS.

 

[Dr Grump]

Obamas spreading the Wealth program will do nothing but drive the rich to offshore accounts and live in their yachts in international waters then where in hell will Obama get his tax dollars huuuuuuuh? ah duh?? If you were rich and wealthy WTH would you do??? I know i wouldnt be hangin around to see some shyster take it and give it to some bums that didnt earn it...So throw all the statistics you can up but there baseless and irrelevant for 2004 to date... I have links proving that Clinton, Obama and the Democratic controlled congress was all but totally responsible for the current economic melt-down including high gas prices........ Spreading the wealth will only further the economic damage cause by the Democrats .. You jackup the rich and theyll jack you right back mark it down... Oups there goes another 1000 jobs to South Korea

If I was rich and wealthy I'd pay my taxes.

Links to garbage sites don't count as links, they are just garbage sites, period. The meltdown happened because unscrupulous bankers decided to try and sell houses to those ijits who couldn't afford it, and thus losing banks billions of dollars. Go figure.