Obama's CHANGE for the Better

Discussion in 'Congress' started by russ9000, Jul 25, 2008.

?

Will raising taxes help lower income Americans?

  1. Absolutely, it's what should be done

    1 vote(s)
    10.0%
  2. No way, lower taxes is the way to go

    9 vote(s)
    90.0%
  1. russ9000
    Offline

    russ9000 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    The political password of Obama is the need for "change, America is heading in the wrong direction", the question is, which direction should America take to solve its economic and military problems? Perhaps a look at rather recent history since World War II can provide evidence as to the right way to go?


    At the end of World War II, socialism, under the guidance of Communist Soviet Union, was spreading rapidly throughout the world. America countered by supporting and making alliances with governments that wanted to remain free of communism. Both America and the USSR developed nuclear missiles as an impediment to military action by the other side. The "cold war" took on a more heated and scary reality.


    The Soviets beat America into space with "Sputnik", and later with the first man in space. President Kennedy responded with the first man on the Moon project. The only trouble was he needed an enormous amount of money to do this. So he reduced taxes, which spurred America ’s free enterprise economy, more people working and paying taxes helped finance this huge space program.


    Later, when President Reagan, labeled the "cowboy" from Hollywood was elected president, the cold war was still a major problem for America. What to do? He lowered taxes. The free enterprise economy once again provided large gobs of money.


    Margaret Thatcher in the UK was also faced with a dire economic situation when she took office. Things turned around when she sold off the government run socialist businesses to private enterprise, their free enterprise economy took off and the UK prospered.


    Gorbachev, the Soviet leader was amazed on how well the free enterprise system was out-performing his socialist system. When Ronald Reagan boldly announced that he was fed up with the Soviet "evil empire", and threatened to launch the "Star Wars" program, this shocked Gorbachev, for he’d come to realize that the Soviet socialized economy could not compete with the free enterprise economy.


    So miracle of miracles, at the insistence of Ronald Reagan, Gorbachev tore down the Berlin Wall, and started the process of democratizing Russia, which brought an end to the cold war.


    However, what didn't happen was stopping the insidious penetration of the superiority of a socialist controlled economy over free enterprise in the minds of America ’s left wing leaders in government, the media, the schools, and even the courts.


    More recently, President George W. Bush inherited an economy headed into a recession. He got the message on reducing taxes, but was confronted by the left-wingers in congress, so he compromised by agreeing to a time limit on reduced taxes. The economy picked up and remained strong until the sub-prime lending fiasco, which was the fault of irresponsible lenders and borrowers, not of President Bush!


    At this time, America is faced with choosing a new president, Obama vs. McCain. Both are calling for a change.


    So which type of change is best for America?


    On the one hand, Obama believes it’s best to let the tax reduction act of President Bush expire. He believes that industry will continue to produce plenty of taxable income.


    But what have we learned from recent history? It will do just the opposite.


    With much higher taxes, it’ll be harder for free enterprise businesses, small and large, to develop new and better ways of producing marketable products and services. Unemployment will increase, reducing the availability of taxable income to government.


    Raising taxes will also hinder the development of internal sources of energy. America ’s dependence on foreign oil has led to excessively high gasoline prices. America must move aggressively to eliminate this problem and that will require strong financial support.


    With Obama’s tax increase, everybody loses, especially the unemployed worker and the poor (less money available from private and government charitable programs).


    McCain on the other hand promises to fight for an extension of the tax reduction act and stop pork barrel spending, which recent history proves works wonders for the economy. And a strong economy is what’s really needed to help the poor and the underprivileged.


    Wake up America; Vote for those who favor a free market economy as opposed to those who prefer more restrictions and higher taxes. McCain may be far from perfect, but at least he’s experienced enough to learn these important lessons from history. Even the Chinese communist government has figured out that a free enterprise system works far better than a socialized economy. Even under their less then desirable communistic rule, their economy is booming and providing their government with massive amounts of money. Somehow Obama has not yet learned these important lessons from history, namely the value of low taxes and a free enterprise system.


    In conclusion; a vote for McCain will most benefit all Americans.

    But it’s equally important that we also elect free enterprise, low tax candidates (Right Wing Republicans) into Congress to assure rapid passage of bills critical for improving the economy, lowering gas prices and curbing unemployment.


    Russ
     
  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
    George Bush raised taxes more than any president in history by borrowing $700 billion dollars from the Chinese to fund the Iraq war.

    Deficit spending is an invisible tax, because when increase the supply of money, the money you have becomes worth less. That is why we now have inflation and $4 a gallon gas.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. jreeves
    Offline

    jreeves Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,588
    Thanks Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +315
    So the other, $8,300,000,000,000 in national debt, doesn't have anything to do with inflation?

    The reason the average gas price is a little lower than $4 a gallon is due to many factors. One of those factors is our lack of domestic oil supply....
     
  4. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089


    ReaganBushDebt.org
     
  5. jreeves
    Offline

    jreeves Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,588
    Thanks Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +315
    Reagan had a democratically controlled Congress. It's ludicrous to state that one side is more cupable than the other. Both sides have spent us into debt-flation.
     
  6. CA95380
    Offline

    CA95380 USMB Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,779
    Thanks Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Central California
    Ratings:
    +186
    How about a "none of the above" choice? I chose not to vote.

    I have no clue how current the estimations on this ... Estimated Costs of an Iraq War According to CBO .... website is, but I know the war in Iraq is costing us "billions" of $$$$ a month!

    In my humble opinion if we were not spending what we are spending over there .... the "poor", the "middle class", and even the "rich" people in this country would be a hellva lot better off!!

    Yes! I will admit I voted for Bush! Both of them! And if I could get within kicking range of either of them I would KICK THEIR ASSES!!!!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    Sorry, the idea of tax cut and spend was purely Reagan's.

    What was it George Bush Sr. called it, "Voodoo economics?"
     
  8. jreeves
    Offline

    jreeves Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,588
    Thanks Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +315
    Ronald Reagan: Inaugural Address
    In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden.

    So, as we begin, let us take inventory. We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.
    Oh yeah Reagan was a heavy believer in spending.....

    The democratic Congress was responsible for the defecits, they had the checkbook.
     
  9. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    I tend to agree with You, and the starter of this thread. however I would add that Reagan did actually push a lot of Defense spending. Of course he was doing this to out spend the soviets which I Believe caused the Soviet union to collapse under the weight of trying to keep up with us. Which I believe was a worthy cause. Of course the Democrat Congress of the time also spent plenty of it's own, which did not help either, Despite what kirks clearly biased link called Reaganbushdebt.org says. Now in the case of Bush, I do not believe Iraq was so important that he needed to spend so much to do it, when we could not afford it. So I do not give Bush the same out as I give Reagan for his spending.

    What Kirk fails to understand is that Bushes tax cuts did indeed dramatically increase revenues to the Federal Government. Like it or not. I know it is hard to understand that cutting taxes could increase revenues, It only seems logical that cutting taxes would lower revenues, but this is not always the case. The right tax cuts, which are usually labeled as tax cuts for the rich, stimulate economic growth and there for the amount of taxes the Fed collects.

    The problem in both the case of Bush and Reagan is that spending was not kept in control at the same time taxes were cut. There for we ran, and are running deficits. However that does not change the fact that the proper tax cuts will increase revenues.

    So if Bush and Reagan had not made the tax cuts they did. The Deficits and Debt would have been and would be much larger and we would be in even deeper shit than we are.

    This is what I fear about an Obama administration. It is clear he wants to raise taxes. He wants to tax the rich, he wants to raise SS and Medicare taxes, and he wants to raise the capitol gains and dividends taxes. These tax increases will Hurt us all, and slow the economy and economic growth even more. At the same Time I Do not see Obama cutting spending. I know he says he will end the war in Iraq and that will pay for everything, but I think most people are aware spending will not go down, the Politicians in DC will just find other ways to spend money. So the net result will be both Tax increases which slow economic growth coupled with the same or even more spending. Obama has already talked about programs that will result in 350 Billion to 1 Trillion dollars a year in new spending, Depending on who you ask. Obama says it is only about 350 Billion, Republicans say the real cost would be 1 trillion or so. Add to Obama's new spending the never ending pork barrel spending of congress, and you can see what I am saying. Ending the war in Iraq simply can not pay for it, and when Obama says repealing the Bush tax cuts will also help pay for his plans, he is ignoring the fact that those cuts actually increased revenues, not the other way around.

    That IMO is a REAL RECIPE for DISASTER. The last thing we can afford right now, is more spending coupled with tax increases that will stifle an already ailing economy even more. IMO

    All that said, I hear McCain paying lip service to lowering taxes and cutting spending, but I am not convinced he will do it. This being a big part of why I have decided I can not support him in this election. I believe we need a true fiscal Conservative to lead us out of this mess. One that will find ways to cut out spending at the same time that he/she keeps the taxes at levels that will encourage and not discourage economic growth. Clearly this is not what Obama is, and I have serious doubts about McCain in that regard as well.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2008
  10. jreeves
    Offline

    jreeves Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,588
    Thanks Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +315
    We spend the entire cost of the Iraq war in one fiscal year on social spending. But alot of people only focus on the funding for a war that is now a necessity.
     

Share This Page