Obama's plan is to redistribute the wealth.

[elvis]

There were plenty of jobs until George Bush borrowed $700 billion dollars from China to fund the occupation of Iraq.

Bill Clinton - Eight years of peace and prosperity.

George Bush - Eight years of war and debt.

Barack Obama - A return to peace and prosperity.

I guess Kosovo and Somalia don't count.
I guess Clinton's bombing of Iraq and his sanctions that killed 200000 Iraqis don't count either. Jobs are in Mexico because GM can pay Mexicans a dollar a day instead of 20 dollars an hour. Clinton liked the corporations, too. Obama won't do anything but raise everyone's taxes and kill more babies.

 

[Chris]

I guess Kosovo and Somalia don't count.
I guess Clinton's bombing of Iraq and his sanctions that killed 200000 Iraqis don't count either. Jobs are in Mexico because GM can pay Mexicans a dollar a day instead of 20 dollars an hour. Clinton liked the corporations, too. Obama won't do anything but raise everyone's taxes and kill more babies.

Now you are just being silly.

 

[DiveCon]

Now you are just being silly.

and you arent?

 

[Diuretic]

nothing wrong with NAFTA unless you live in Michigan or Ohio. all those jobs are in Mexico now because of Clinton.

I would think that jobs have been outsourced because of cheaper labour elsewhere - happens to us in Aus and it's not because of any free trade agreement, the businesses just offshore them to increase profit.

 

[Ravi]

Does anyone have a transcript of Obama's conversation with Joe? Because I have a feeling it is being interpreted incorrectly and I'd like to see for myself.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Obama all but told the plumber that his wealth should be seized in the name of equity. The encounter played out one of the old themes of democratic politics: the appeal to the many to take from the few. It's traditionally an easy sell in democratic regimes.

Did you actually read the transcript of their conversation or listen to it. Your interpretaion above is a little skewed.

It's interesting that when we want to take back the tax cut from the rich, it's class warfare. But when it was given to them it wasn't.

Look at the actual data to see how much the rich really pay in taxes. It may not be speading the wealth like you say.

 

[editec]

You really think something as complex as the American economy can be explained in a simple post?

I think that inequiy in Federal taxation is only part of the problem.

Those poor, that you insist are only paying 3% of the personal incomes taxes, (and that is true) are paying the vast majority of all other state and local taxes, which means that they are really paying the for the vast majority of services that citizens actually use.

Why you guys keep missing that obvious fact I don't understand.

Generally, I notice that you complaints about FEDERAL TAXES are an excuse to suggest that the rich need more tax breaks.

Look at the net worth of the monied class. Note how their net worth keeps rising, while the bottom 80% of us are getting poorer?

Given that, how on earth can you still be complaining about how put upon the rich are in this nation?

State after state is finding they can no longer support their infrastructures, (and it's the working class that pays most of those local taxes) and STILL some of us here are demanding that the rich get still more tax breaks for their FEDERAL taxes.

Meanwhile the FEDERAL government is sluffing off its revenue sharing agreements with the states, thus putting them into the red all over the nation.

I don't get how you can keep missing this Federal/STATE disconnect, to be honest.

 

[DiamondDave]

I agree about the war on poverty, and Clinton reformed welfare.

But tax credits for working poor are not handouts.

Tax "credits" with money coming back when they are paying no taxes to begin with, is INDEED just another form of welfare.... kirky boy

 

[Navy1960]

I had the chance to see T. Boone Pickens yesterday in an interview discussing his energy plan , and during the interview he was asked about taxes. His answer was quite telling, he said that it would be a big mistake to raise taxes on anyone during an economic downturn, forgive my paraphrase. IMO his energy plan which Obama has used from time to time to promote his own is the way to energy independance in this country. It's telling when a businessman of his stature is basically saying the same things about Obama's tax plan, that many others have been saying. Please forgive the paraphrase, as I am still working on that first cup of coffee.

[youtube]vdB_STNOGU[/youtube]

 

[Chris]

Tax "credits" with money coming back when they are paying no taxes to begin with, is INDEED just another form of welfare.... kirky boy

Sorry, Brainiac, they are paying taxes to begin with. They are just getting some of them back.

I have friends who are single mothers who work full time and count on those tax credits to help them raise their families.

 

[Navy1960]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vdB_STNOGU]YouTube - Pickens On The Obama Tax Plan[/ame]

Here is the link, I don't know why all I got was a white box on that last post.

 

[Chris]

T. Boone is a billionaire Republican.

No suprise he doesn't want the rich taxed.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I think that inequiy in Federal taxation is only part of the problem.

Those poor, that you insist are only paying 3% of the personal incomes taxes, (and that is true) are paying the vast majority of all other state and local taxes, which means that they are really paying the for the vast majority of services that citizens actually use.

Why you guys keep missing that obvious fact I don't understand.

Generally, I notice that you complaints about FEDERAL TAXES are an excuse to suggest that the rich need more tax breaks.

Look at the net worth of the monied class. Note how their net worth keeps rising, while the bottom 80% of us are getting poorer?

Given that, how on earth can you still be complaining about how put upon the rich are in this nation?

State after state is finding they can no longer support their infrastructures, (and it's the working class that pays most of those local taxes) and STILL some of us here are demanding that the rich get still more tax breaks for their FEDERAL taxes.

Meanwhile the FEDERAL government is sluffing off its revenue sharing agreements with the states, thus putting them into the red all over the nation.

I don't get how you can keep missing this Federal/STATE disconnect, to be honest.

Personally, I'd much rather have 20% of my tax money paid locally and send only 7-10% to the feds.

As you say, most of the services I use are provided by my local government.

The federal government should be reduced to its original functions of national defense and diplomacy. Everything else should be the responsibility of each individual state. At least then we could see where our money is going.

 

[Ravi]

Found it. As I suspected, this quote was taken out of context. Obama was clearly talking about giving middle class people a tax cut...thereby spreading the wealth by allowing them to keep more of their personal income and spend it in the community.

It's almost gotten pathetic, what the Republicans are doing.

 

[jillian]

Almost?

 

[Navy1960]

It's interesting though Chris that Obama was not calling him a "Rich Republican" when he was using T. Boone's name to promote his own energy plan. The other thing to consider here Chris is that the someone that has that kind of wealth tells you that if you tax me more, I'm simply going to pass along the cost to you the consumer, or lay you off, then its something that needs to be paid attention too. As I had said earlier, a tax cut is not a tax cut when you don't have a job to pay taxes. Another thing to consider as well Chris, is you get a tax cut on one end and then go to purchase goods and services, and your paying a tax on the other end. Even if you don't call it a tax it is. A corporation is in the tax collection business not the tax paying business. Once people understand that concept then people might understand that it may be a better idea to give companies incentives to HIRE rather than penalties to lay them off.

 

[Chris]

It's interesting though Chris that Obama was not calling him a "Rich Republican" when he was using T. Boone's name to promote his own energy plan. The other thing to consider here Chris is that the someone that has that kind of wealth tells you that if you tax me more, I'm simply going to pass along the cost to you the consumer, or lay you off, then its something that needs to be paid attention too. As I had said earlier, a tax cut is not a tax cut when you don't have a job to pay taxes. Another thing to consider as well Chris, is you get a tax cut on one end and then go to purchase goods and services, and your paying a tax on the other end. Even if you don't call it a tax it is. A corporation is in the tax collection business not the tax paying business. Once people understand that concept then people might understand that it may be a better idea to give companies incentives to HIRE rather than penalties to lay them off.

Reducing taxes on the rich and passing them on to the ordinary taxpayer is the Republican's mantra. David Stockman, Reagan's budget director said Reagan's tax cuts were a "trojan horse" to reduce taxes on the rich. Obama's plan is to reduce taxes on those making less than $250,000 a years and pass some of the burden on the rich. I guess they won't be able to afford any more $10,000 watches or $75,000 Land Cruisers.

So sad.....

 

[Navy1960]

Reducing taxes on the rich and passing them on to the ordinary taxpayer is the Republican's mantra. David Stockman, Reagan's budget director said Reagan's tax cuts were a "trojan horse" to reduce taxes on the rich. Obama's plan is to reduce taxes on those making less than $250,000 a years and pass some of the burden on the rich. I guess they won't be able to afford any more $10,000 watches or $75,000 Land Cruisers.

So sad.....

I don't think you saw one word in any of my posting that used the word "rich". The bottom line Chris is that when you work hard in the United States here is a difficult concept for some to swallow, its not a bad thing to realize SUCCESS for your hard work. At the same time, the so-called rich that Obama wishes to punish for their success and then re-distribute their incomes to people who don't pay taxes are the very same people who pay most of the taxes in the first place. All these Obama supporters think that this impending "middle class" tax cut is going to be a great thing. You want to know whats going to happen during an economic downturn when you raise taxes on 80% of the tax payers and raise the corporate tax rate during this kind of situation. One, you will have a rise in "inflation" costs of goods will rise such as food, transportation, home heating, etc. Two, companies will reduce overhead to adjust for the new tax rate by laying off employee's, causing a rise in unemployment and even more people looking to the governement for assistance. Three, in a further effort to reduce costs, companies will seek cheaper alternatives in offshore labor i.e. outsourcing. You want to see a real display of this Chris, when Obama implements his "windfall profits" tax on oil go to the gas station that very same day or the next and see what the price of your fuel is the next day. That tax YOU will be paying not the oil companies. So lets look at it this way, you have a gigantic budget deficit, and have recently added over a trillion dollars in numerous "bailouts" and then you add another trillion in new spending on top of that for social programs, and then you raise taxes on 80% of the tax base to help pay for the social programs then turn around and give back a tax break to the other 100 million who pay little or no taxes. You have not reduced the deficit, or spending, you have added to it in multiple ways. It's as plain as day.

 

[Bern80]

Yes, this is the familiar argument against a graduated income tax and is yelled from the mountain tops by almost every high net worth individual (but not super HNWs, they are smarter than that). The reason the top 1% income individuals pay 40% of the income tax is because that is (proportionately) how much they benefit from government spending.

No they aren't smarter than that. they have simply reached a level of wealth where they can afford not to care if the government decides their entitled to half of it. that paragraph couldn't be a bigger load of bullshit if you wanted it to be.

Say you have HNW guy, let’s call him Sam and Sam as an annual income of around $1,500,000 (that’s about the median for the top 1%). Sam does not have a job (per se) but in a typical month receives the following:
$25,000 Stock dividend income
$40,000 income thrown off by family trusts
$26,000 in interest income
$6,000 in partnership income
$2,000 in income as a contractor (Board Member)

And you want to maintain a level of credibility by telling us these figures constitute a typical income for a HNW individual? You won't get far around here making stuff up.

$608 billion Social Security-
If the private sector covered these costs rather than the US government, Sam would have a smaller income from investment earnings.

You just got done using you lame quote of a person unknown to prove the notion that these people use a large chunk of tax dollars. And you start out by listing figures on programs where their tax money is going to go predominatly to other people? That makes sense. HNW individuals aren't depending on social security.

$386 billion Medicare-
If the Federal Government didn’t cover these costs, Sam’s business (Sam mart?) my need to provide retiree health insurance, and that cuts down on Sam’s investment income.

That is a HUGE 'might'. Plus you previously claimed 'Sam' doesn't work. If he has his own business, he works.

$209 billion Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program
If the Federal government didn’t provide this, the workers generating dividend and interest income for Sam may want to be insured by their employer and could for a union (Sam doesn’t like unions), that would cut down Sam’s investment income.

Wow assumption laden and a totally contrived scenario.

$324 billion Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
Without Unemployment benefits people who are without work wouldn’t be able to buy stuff and the sale of stuff is what pays Sam’s investment income. Without Unemployed people buying stuff Sam makes less money

Unemployed people should be buying only what they need. So this is contingent upon whether Sam's Mart sells said types of goods or not.

$261 billion (+9.2%) - Interest on National Debt
Sam needs a stable economy with stable interest rates, without economic stability, Sam looses income.

$481.4 billion United States Department of Defense
Without a strong defense people could come and take Sam’s stuff away, besides he has Boeing Bonds and FMC stock so the more the Defense Spends, the more money Sam makes.

$145.2 billion - Global War on Terror
See DOD above.

$69.3 billion - Health and Human Services
As plagues and the rampant spread of communicable disease would negatively affect worker productivity, DHHS decreases absenteeism and that increases dividends.

$56.0 billion (+0.0%) - United States Department of Education
The businesses that pay Sam’s dividends need managers, accountants, engineers, etc. If subsidized student loan programs and grants were eliminated businesses would need to pay professional workers more, thus profits go down, as does Sam’s monthly dividend.

$39.4 billion - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
See DOD above

$35.2 billion - US Department of Housing and Urban Development
Sam has been trying to get rid of this one for years because he doesn’t realize any benefit from its existence.

$35.0 billion (+22.0%) - State and Other International Programs
Sam likes to be able to go to other countries and not be shot at. Sam also receives payments from companies that do business overseas in foreign markets.

$34.3 billion - Department of Homeland Security
Hold up, this is a whole separate line item from the DOD and Global War on Terror? Anyway, see DOD above.

$24.3 billion - Energy
Part of Sam’s dividend income comes from an oil trust

$20.2 billion - Department of Justice
Kind of like DOD but now its US citizens that want to take Sam’s stuff

$20.2 billion - Department of Agriculture
Sam has shares of ADM, supermarket to the world. ADM receives massive government subsidies.

$17.3 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Sam thinks space stuff is cool. Oh, and did I mention he has shares of Boeing stock already?

$12.1 billion - Department of Transportation
Sam’s investment income comes from businesses that turn stuff into different stuff, all this stuff moving needs roads. How much would it cost private business to maintain the road network? That would really lower Sam’s ability to buy more Stuff

$12.1 billion- Department of Treasury
You need the treasury otherwise no one will pay for all these government programs.

$10.6 billion - United States Department of the Interior
Sam likes parks, and the stuff the DOI buys helps pay Sam’s dividends.

$10.6 billion - United States Department of Labor
Sam doesn’t like the DOL but knows that if it didn’t exist more workers may organize.

$51.8 billion (+9.7%) - Other On-budget Discretionary Spending
Don’t know, but if they buy stuff, Sam gets a cut.

$39.0 billion - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending
See above.

So, as you can see the reason Sam’s income is what it is stems from all these different areas and all of them benefit his bottom line through the additional profits they provide business.

Oh, and we are not even talking about Sam’s CAPITAL income.

Wow. that was an awful lot of numbers to pull out of your ass. And you didn't even come to close to proving your original point. You contrived a bunch of ifs and mights plus you said he was getting a proportionate amount of benefits from his taxes when almost all of your list are things provided to other people that he doesn't have a need for so you try to make this bullshit indirect link between all these expenditures and Sam's income.

 

[Bern80]

There were plenty of jobs until George Bush borrowed $700 billion dollars from China to fund the occupation of Iraq.

Bill Clinton - Eight years of peace and prosperity.

George Bush - Eight years of war and debt.

Barack Obama - A return to peace and prosperity.

How and where, EXACTLEY, were jobs lost by doing this?