How about a real discussion on politics?

[Clay Buster]

I've been a member of this discussion board for exactly one day and I joined in the hopes that I would find intelligent discussion of political issues which I don't seem to find on my "Roll Tide" message board or my favorite "Clay Shooting" message board.

I have yet to find those discussions. Maybe they are here and if I wade through enough disinformation threads from both parties I can find those gems, but they are not readily apparent.

So with that said I am starting this thread in the hopes that we can have some of those discussions. There is not much time before the general election but there is enough time to fully inform ourselves on the candidates and the platforms which they are running on.

I know most of you would like to know the ACTUAL positions of these candidates and not the junk being spewed by Dem and Repub hacks.

So I encourage you to post any question you may have on a major issue our country is facing and let's flesh out these candidates and what they believe.

Just remember folks:

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. - F. Scott Fitzgerald

So, let's start with some real numbers on McCain's and Obama's income tax plan since I noticed a great deal of wrong information on this board.

I pulled this information from the CNN Money section.

.......................................MCCAIN.................OBAMA
.
Income.............................Avg. tax bill............Avg. tax bill
.
Over $2.9M.......................-$269,364................+$701,885
$603K and up....................-$45,361..................+$115,974
$227K-$603K.....................-$7,871...................+$12
$161K-$227K.....................-$4,380....................-$2,789
$112K-$161K.....................-$2,614....................-$2,204
$66K-$112K.......................-$1,009....................-$1,290
$38K-$66K.........................-$319......................-$1,042
$19K-$38K.........................-$113......................-$892
Under $19K........................-$19.......................-$567

It looks like McCain will give the biggest tax breaks for those making $200,000 or higher.

Obama looks like he is sticking it to the wealthy, but his claims of making HUGE tax cuts for the middle class don't appear to be as large as some make out.

Thoughts?

 

[Caligirl]

Are those numbers relative to taxes we pay today or are they relative to no tax? In other words, is McCain really talking about less taxation across the board, and if so, does this mean that Bush has been taxing us too heavily?

 

[Clay Buster]

They are relative to taxes we pay today.

Any number that has a minus symbol in front of it (-) or a plus symbol (+), means your income tax, relative to your salary, will decrease or increase accordingly.

So to answer your question, yes, McCain is suggesting tax decreases across the board with the majority of them being for the higher incomes.

As to Bush taxing us too heavily, aren't we always taxed too much?!

 

[Caligirl]

What is the projected deficit under McCain's plan? Say, with the wars continuing one year, five years, etc. Does he promise a balanced budget, etc.

 

[strollingbones]

read my lips..there will be no tax cuts..how can we have tax cuts and spend the money we are spending on war, etc etc....dont be fooled...we will be taxed by either candidate.

 

[dilloduck]

read my lips..there will be no tax cuts..how can we have tax cuts and spend the money we are spending on war, etc etc....dont be fooled...we will be taxed by either candidate.

Cut wasteful spending for starters.

 

[strollingbones]

Cut wasteful spending for starters.

many states have stayed afloat by doing away with programs that were needed at one time but had outlived their use....you think we could do away with the entire administration....

seriously....we either pay taxes now or let our grandkids pay out the nose later...and its the fault of people like me...baby boomers...we have gotten as much for ourselves as we can....and we continue to make our demands...after all we are the "baby boomers".

 

[Caligirl]

many states have stayed afloat by doing away with programs that were needed at one time but had outlived their use....you think we could do away with the entire administration....

seriously....we either pay taxes now or let our grandkids pay out the nose later...and its the fault of people like me...baby boomers...we have gotten as much for ourselves as we can....and we continue to make our demands...after all we are the "baby boomers".

I don't mind a little taxation. We spent our Bush Tax Cut check on a new lamp. A really really nice one. The old one worked just fine but boy the new one is pretty.

Frankly, I expect taxation. To make an analogy, I expect everyone in my family to pitch in to keep the household running. How's the bible verse? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs? Something like that? I always thought the kids should pitch in with chores, even though it means less lazy time for them. I do the bulk of the housework, hubby does the bulk of the hubby work (he fixed the computer today, for example) and the kids do some work aroudn the house because we expect them to be contributing members of society.

The mentality of "all tax breaks all the time" just seems very short sighted. How the hell do you expect to pay for stuff? Defer payment? That means borrow it. How much do we owe china?

We borrowed money from china to put out the stimulus checks that people used to buy goods at Walmart that were made in China. China is lauighing all the way to the bank.

How is this patriotic?

 

[CA95380]

How about we through this into the mix?

-snipped from the article-

My flat tax plan has one simple rate, on the federal level: 17% on personal income; and 17% on corporate profits. There would be generous exemptions for individuals: $13,200 for each adult; $4,000 for each child or dependent and a refundable tax credit of $1,000 per child age 16 or younger. A family of four would pay no federal income tax on its first $46,165 of income. Exemptions for a family of six -- mom, dad, four kids -- would be $65,930. No anti-risktaking capital gains levy; the capital gains tax would go to 0%. The abusive Alternative Minimum (really maximum) Tax would be abolished. No more death tax: You'd leave the world unmolested by the IRS. No taxation without respiration!

One Simple Rate - WSJ.com

I think we had this discussion before, when I first joined the group .... but thought I would add this to this thread. Just curious what you think about it?

 

[indago]

Clay Buster wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks like McCain will give the biggest tax breaks for those making $200,000 or higher.

Obama looks like he is sticking it to the wealthy, but his claims of making HUGE tax cuts for the middle class don't appear to be as large as some make out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you are going to talk politics, you would do well to examine into the Constitution drawn up by Representatives from the several States. Right out of the box, the President of the United States does not give "tax breaks", nor does he make "HUGE tax cuts". The federal taxing authority was granted to the Congress. So, your opening discussion is a null, at best; and anyone who would argue the point with you is "tilting at windmills".



-

 

[Ravi]

Thoughts? I think you should link to the article, because the analysis you posted is rather simplistic and the article is pretty interesting. You wouldn't want to be accused of being a partisan hack, would you?

How McCain and Obama will change your tax bill - Jun. 11, 2008

 

[Clay Buster]

read my lips..there will be no tax cuts..how can we have tax cuts and spend the money we are spending on war, etc etc....dont be fooled...we will be taxed by either candidate.

While Obama states he can make up for the deficit by raising taxes on the wealthy and getting us out of Iraq thereby reducing spending, McCain believes by cutting pork barrel spending and other "useless" programs he can make up for the shortfall on tax collection.

Thoughts? I think you should link to the article, because the analysis you posted is rather simplistic and the article is pretty interesting. You wouldn't want to be accused of being a partisan hack, would you?

I would have loved to, but you are required to have at least 15 posts before you can link any other site. Give me a little time and I'll have more information linked in this thread than anyone will care to read.

 

[Clay Buster]

Clay Buster wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks like McCain will give the biggest tax breaks for those making $200,000 or higher.

Obama looks like he is sticking it to the wealthy, but his claims of making HUGE tax cuts for the middle class don't appear to be as large as some make out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you are going to talk politics, you would do well to examine into the Constitution drawn up by Representatives from the several States. Right out of the box, the President of the United States does not give "tax breaks", nor does he make "HUGE tax cuts". The federal taxing authority was granted to the Congress. So, your opening discussion is a null, at best; and anyone who would argue the point with you is "tilting at windmills".-

We are discussing the candidates platforms and what is being put forward. I too have had numerous civics classes, not to mention a minor in political science. (Now that I think about it, I guess that makes me qualified to be VP. )

The point of the discussion is to determine the plans which will be presented before Congress by each nominee if they were elected. Of course what actually makes it through the house and senate is rarely exactly what is put forward, but I think it is a mistake to ignore a matter like this.

In that same token why talk about the economy at all? It's the fed and Congress who often dictate how the economy is fairing, not the president.

btw - I can debate the flip side of that issue just as well.

 

[Clay Buster]

What is the projected deficit under McCain's plan? Say, with the wars continuing one year, five years, etc. Does he promise a balanced budget, etc.

McCain states he can have a balanced budget by 2013. Of course Obama says the plan is absurd and that it will take more than two terms of a president to balance our budget. McCain cited Reagan as an example of what he would do, but that may have been a bad choice since Reagan didn't balance the budget.

Obama is claiming he will institute a pay as you go platform which will eliminate new deficit and at the same time by getting out of Iraq he believes he can start paying down the deficit. And of course McCain says Obama's thinking is pie in the sky and will never work.

Personally I don't believe either one of these candidates can have a balanced budget within two terms even with full cooperation from the House and Senate. The largest deficit in our nation's history will simply not disappear that quickly.

For Ravi - I still can't link to other sites, but if you care to search, this information was pulled from:

CNN
Media Matters . org
Chicago Tribune
New York Times
Wall Street Journal

Go to their websites and type in "presidential balanced budgets" in the search bar.

I know it's a pain, but I need a few more posts before I can link.

 

[editec]

I

So, let's start with some real numbers on McCain's and Obama's income tax plan since I noticed a great deal of wrong information on this board.

I pulled this information from the CNN Money section.

.......................................MCCAIN.................OBAMA
.
Income.............................Avg. tax bill............Avg. tax bill
.
Over $2.9M.......................-$269,364................+$701,885
$603K and up....................-$45,361..................+$115,974
$227K-$603K.....................-$7,871...................+$12
$161K-$227K.....................-$4,380....................-$2,789
$112K-$161K.....................-$2,614....................-$2,204
$66K-$112K.......................-$1,009....................-$1,290
$38K-$66K.........................-$319......................-$1,042
$19K-$38K.........................-$113......................-$892
Under $19K........................-$19.......................-$567

Well, in aggregate the modest tax breaks to the middle class end up driving the consumer engine of the economy which, I think, would have a positive effect on our economy.

What I wonder is will Obama's plan to end the tax breaks we gave to the very wealthy be enough to pay for the tax breaks he proposes to give to the working class?

Because if they cannot, then I don't think the middle class should get those breaks, either.

There is no free lunch in economics.

SOMEBODY has got to pay the bills. If we don't pay our bills with taxes, we pay our bills by the devaluation of our currency.

I think ending the current tax breaks for the billionaires is a capital idea, though.

I don't think that idiotic tax policy has served this nation well.

I do not see any evidence it stimulated our economy.

We all know perfectly well that wht it did was increase our national debt thus devaluing our national currency.

So all putting that money back into the hands of the superrich did was increase the national debts and decrease the value of our specie.

I also think those tax breaks for billionaires ended up creating bubbles in the world of finance.

Far too much of that untaxed money went into chasing profits that were NOT available in the financial instruments they were invested in.

Why most economists cannot understand that increasing the money the well off have to invest is inflationary to the financial investment markets I continue not to understand.

We see this inflation in the stock or bond or real estates markets happen every time the rich are given huge tax breaks.

They cannot spend that money fast enough, and being good capitalists, they seek to put it to work as investments.

But because there is now so MUCH liquidity, more dollars essantially drive up the cost of investments without changing the profit side of those investments a whit.

Hence the cost of investments goes up, but the return of those investment dollars does not, and eventually the market corrects thus putting us into an economic slump as it has recently.

Better to put the money into the hands of consumers, FIRST.

They stimulate the economy from the CONSUMER SIDE, rather than from the SUPPLY side, and them the value of investments to the investor classes goes up meaningfully and NOT as a mere bubble in the price of investments that will inevitably pop.

 

[Clay Buster]

How about we through this into the mix?

-snipped from the article-

I think we had this discussion before, when I first joined the group .... but thought I would add this to this thread. Just curious what you think about it?

When Forbes ran for president and put his flat tax plan forward I was intrigued. I love the concept of it and he seems to make sense plus I completely agree with his reasoning behind it, but I've also heard other economists state it's just not realistic. If you believe that lower taxes fuel economic growth, then the plan should work. Many don't believe in that system, however, and state that we would just be creating a shortfall for the government. (I say tough. Streamline the government and it wouldn't need so much money! )

The reason I don't believe it will ever be implemented is because like most government entities throughout time, the IRS has become a behemoth and there are too many jobs and too much money at stake for it to be taken apart.

 

[Clay Buster]

Well, in aggregate the modest tax breaks to the middle class end up driving the consumer engine of the economy which, I think, would have a positive effect on our economy.

What I wonder is will Obama's plan to end the tax breaks we gave to the very wealthy be enough to pay for the tax breaks he proposes to give to the working class?

Because if they cannot, then I don't think the middle class should get those breaks, either.

There is no free lunch in economics.

SOMEBODY has got to pay the bills. If we don't pay our bills with taxes, we pay our bills by the devaluation of our currency.

I think ending the current tax breaks for the billionaires is a capital idea, though.

I don't think that idiotic tax policy has served this nation well.

I do not see any evidence it stimulated our economy.

We all know perfectly well that wht it did was increase our national debt thus devaluing our national currency.

So all putting that money back into the hands of the superrich did was increase the national debts and decrease the value of our specie.

I also think those tax breaks for billionaires ended up creating bubbles in the world of finance.

Far too much of that untaxed money went into chasing profits that were NOT available in the financial instruments they were invested in.

Why most economists cannot understand that increasing the money the well off have to invest is inflationary to the financial investment markets I continue not to understand.

We see this inflation in the stock or bond or real estates markets happen every time the rich are given huge tax breaks.

They cannot spend that money fast enough, and being good capitalists, they seek to put it to work as investments.

But because there is now so MUCH liquidity, more dollars essantially drive up the cost of investments without changing the profit side of those investments a whit.

Hence the cost of investments goes up, but the return of those investment dollars does not, and eventually the market corrects thus putting us into an economic slump as it has recently.

Better to put the money into the hands of consumers, FIRST.

They stimulate the economy from the CONSUMER SIDE, rather than from the SUPPLY side, and them the value of investments to the investor classes goes up meaningfully and NOT as a mere bubble in the price of investments that will inevitably pop.

Very good post. I think I would enjoy having a beer with you.

To follow up, what are some steps in your opinion, which would begin to bolster the falling dollar?

I know it's like comparing apples to oranges, but when I lived in Europe in the 80s the exchange rate was fantastic. Now with the unified Euro the dollar is taking a beating.

Is a stronger economy and cutting tax breaks for the wealthy the solution?

What are some other areas we should be concerned about?

I know I'm over-simplifying this, but as you can tell I'm not nearly as versed in economic areas as I would like to be.

 

[Clay Buster]

All right boys and girls, I'm off to work but I'm looking forward to re-joining the discussion this evening.

In the meantime, please feel free to ask any questions on any matter which concerns you about the presidential race and let's keep our discussion going.

(The truth of the matter is this is just one more post so I can get to 15 and start posting links!)

 

[indago]

Clay Buster wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The reason I don't believe it will ever be implemented is because like most government entities throughout time, the IRS has become a behemoth and there are too many jobs and too much money at stake for it to be taken apart.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, there will always be an IRS, or other such revenue collecting system. It is part of our Constitutional structure.

 

[indago]

Caligirl wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
How's the bible verse? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?
-------------------------------------------------------------

That's not a Bible verse, it's a communist doctrine.