Obama's 95% Illusion

[The Paperboy]

From Wall Street Journal:

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit."

Full story here

 

[DavidS]

From Wall Street Journal:

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit."

Full story here

Irrelevant. When was the last time the taxes were increased on the rich? Bill Clinton. Anyone miss that economy? What happened to a "If you raise taxes during a recession, it'll cause a depression!" Gosh.

 

[jreeves]

Irrelevant. When was the last time the taxes were increased on the rich? Bill Clinton. Anyone miss that economy? What happened to a "If you raise taxes during a recession, it'll cause a depression!" Gosh.

You fail to remember the tech boom of the 90's....

 

[The Paperboy]

Irrelevant. When was the last time the taxes were increased on the rich? Bill Clinton. Anyone miss that economy? What happened to a "If you raise taxes during a recession, it'll cause a depression!" Gosh.

In fact that's exactly what happened. By the time Clinton left office we were in a recession.

Fact: Tax revenues go up when taxes are lowered. Revenues are up 20% under Bush.

 

[midcan5]

Clinton proved the republican conservative mantras about taxes and the rich were and are fantasy. That they continually repeat them demonstrates the paucity of their ideology when it comes to sound economic theory.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."
Tax cuts spur economic growth

 

[Dr Grump]

I have no problem with people earning over 2 million paying more tax. If they are so greedy and selfish that they throw their toys out the cot with their "I'm gonna cut jobs, just so I can stay super rich", they can get stuffed! Being rich isn't a right.....just look at all those lovely bonuses these turds on Wall St gave themselves while their house of cards were collapsing...

 

[Red Dawn]

you Fail To Remember The Tech Boom Of The 90's....

Lmao!

-Bush/mccain Fan: "Raising Taxes On The Rich Is A Job Killer And Will Cause Recession"

-democrat: "What About 1993 When Clinton Raised Taxes On The Rich, It Didn't Seem To Cause A Recession Or Kill Jobs?"

-Bush/Mccain Fan: "Clinton Just Got Lucky."

 

[The Paperboy]

Clinton proved the republican conservative mantras about taxes and the rich were and are fantasy. That they continually repeat them demonstrates the paucity of their ideology when it comes to sound economic theory.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."
Tax cuts spur economic growth

Yes and you had three wars to help create that economic growth.

The greatest and longest peace time economic growth was under Reagan.

 

[jillian]

Yes and you had three wars to help create that economic growth.

The greatest and longest peace time economic growth was under Reagan.

Fibbie fibbie... it was under Clinton.

Reagan had to raise taxes because he was going to slide into a recession. Largest tax increase in history, if I recall correctly. ;o)

And there's no such thing as trickle down voodoo economics. Haven't you figured that out after what your boys have done over the last two terms?

Sheesh. Even white rats learn.

 

[The Paperboy]

Fibbie fibbie... it was under Clinton.

Reagan had to raise taxes because he was going to slide into a recession. Largest tax increase in history, if I recall correctly. ;o)

You do not recall correctly. Bush 41 raised taxes and the economy went south. Proves the point.

 

[editec]

TAXES are NOT the primary cause of recessions or booms in the economy, folks.

We are going into a CONSUMER-DRIVEN depression, now.

Changing the tax structure isn't going to change the basica reality that the working class has been losing puchasing power for the last two or three decades.

You can cut taxes on the working class down to ZERO and it really wpon't make that much difference since so many of the working class will see NO BENEFIT from that tax cut because they don't pay federal taxes already.

Obama's tax proposals will help that 60%-80% income bracket (basically the upper middle class) because they have TRULY been getting screwed on their taxes for decades.

We cannot wag the economic dog by the tax tail if the dog doesn't have a tail to begin with!

 

[The Paperboy]

Jillian,

You seem like a smart person. Why would you want anyone to pay more money to the government, a government that has shown over and over again how wasteful it is?

Why would you want anyone to become more dependent on the government?

Wouldn't it be far better to let people, of their own free will, assist those in need through charitable organizations?

Americans show over and over again how generous they are, especially when they are allowed to act on their own determinism, not by government mandate.

Besides those who are scum, who make a lot of money and don't care about others will simply find ways to game the system.

Giving more money to the government seems idiotic at best.

 

[jillian]

Jillian,

You seem like a smart person. Why would you want anyone to pay more money to the government, a government that has shown over and over again how wasteful it is?

Why would you want anyone to become more dependent on the government?

Wouldn't it be far better to let people, of their own free will, assist those in need through charitable organizations?

Americans show over and over again how generous they are, especially when they are allowed to act on their own determinism, not by government mandate.

Besides those who are scum, who make a lot of money and don't care about others will simply find ways to game the system.

Giving more money to the government seems idiotic at best.

I am a smart person, and I remember when people are incompetent. I think government fails when it's run by people who hate government. I think no flack of the religious right should ever get near a supreme court appointee and I don't believe in living on the national credit card just to enrich the already beyond rich.

To me it's simple good sense to reject more of the insanity of the last eight years.

You seem like a smart person too when you're not stretching the truth. And even then, I've found you to be always pleasant because you know what you're posting is propaganda so seem to do it with a wink and a nod. What I don't understand is why you'd want to continue failed policies which have lowered this country socially, economically, and diminished our place in the world.

 

[Red Dawn]

Oh Gawd, not this again.

Red states on average, get FAR more pork and federal dollars from the US taxpayer than Blue states.

What was the statistic: the residents of republican alaska get ten times more federal dollars per capita, than the residents of democratic illinois?

When republican bitch and moan about government spending, just look at those maps that show where most of the federal money is going - to red states.

The government sucks at doing some things. Invading and occupying iraq was a collasal waste of a trillion dollars. The government sucks at policing the "war on drugs", and spending 50 billion dollars on star wars missile systems is a complete joke.

The government can and does do a good job financing healthcare, for the most part. Just ask Bush and Cheney if they like their government financed healthcare.

We should rely on only "charity"? Tell me in which nation that works, and when did that work in america?

 

[The Paperboy]

I am a smart person, and I remember when people are incompetent. I think government fails when it's run by people who hate government. I think no flack of the religious right should ever get near a supreme court appointee and I don't believe in living on the national credit card just to enrich the already beyond rich.

To me it's simple good sense to reject more of the insanity of the last eight years.

You seem like a smart person too when you're not stretching the truth. And even then, I've found you to be always pleasant because you know what you're posting is propaganda so seem to do it with a wink and a nod. What I don't understand is why you'd want to continue failed policies which have lowered this country socially, economically, and diminished our place in the world.

How about some honest answers to my questions above instead of liberal talking points?

What is the failed policy that has got you all up in arms?

What is the new policy that will make it OK?

My opinion is probably the only "policy" that would really make a difference would be term limits on Congress as well as making it illegal to receive contributions from any industry that you oversee as a chairmen or committee member i.e. if you're on the banking committee it would be illegal to receive contributions form any bank.

Do you really think that Charles Rangel hasn't been corrupted? The guy avoids taxes yet holds the purse strings to our country.

 

[jillian]

How about some honest answers to my questions above instead of liberal talking points?

What is the failed policy that has got you all up in arms?

What is the new policy that will make it OK?

My opinion is probably the only "policy" that would really make a difference would be term limits on Congress as well as making it illegal to receive contributions from any industry that you oversee as a chairmen or committee member i.e. if you're on the banking committee it would be illegal to receive contributions form any bank.

Do you really think that Charles Rangel hasn't been corrupted? The guy avoids taxes yet holds the purse strings to our country.

I wasn't posting "liberal talking points". I gave you my opinion. But feel free to diminish it because you have no response to the things I said.

What's failed? EVERYTHING. Bush's failed war of choice. Bush's economic policies. Bush's pathetic efforts to bolster the radical right by doing things like interfering with some poor woman's family letting her die. Bush's "efforts" at international relations.

Do you really need it spelled out for you why I would think the policies of the worst president we've ever had are failures and why I'd reject them out of hand?

I'm an attorney. Do you not understand why I'd find the rabid rights efforts to corrupt judicial review offensive? (unless, of course, it deals with overturning a gun law, then the right is all for judicial review). I'm not Christian. Is it a stretch to understand why I wouldn't want Christian dogma enacted into law?

I think power corrupts. But nothing compares to the disgusting displays by this administration in terms of secrecy and perversion of our policies for the benefit of the richest 1% of our population. Rangel makes a few extra shekels? Who cares? How much do you think Cheney's Haliburton shares in his "blind trust" are worth now because of policies he fostered? How screwed did we get because he sat in a backroom with the execs and lobbyists from Exxon/Mobile and the other oil companies and formulated our energy policy. Oh right... we don't know, because he decided, out of some fantasy made in thin air.. that the records couldn't be touched.. .and the repub congress and scalia and the boys wouldn't do their duty and protect and defend the constitution by engaging in their obligation to perform checks and balances.

I could go on, but you get the point.

And watch that "liberal talking points" BS with me... especially when you basically drop in just to drop propaganda.. .kind of like the air drops of "go home yankee dog" that they did during wartime.

 

[rayboyusmc]

The greatest and longest peace time economic growth was under Reagan.

Most of what happened under Reagan was a carry over fromt he past. History, once the right wing revisionists are stopped, will show him to be an average president who could act well on the telly.

Reagan was just Nixon with speaking skills and no 5 o-clock shadow.

Iran Contra forever.

 

[jillian]

Actually, had it not been for his paranoia which led to Watergate, Nixon would probably have gone down as one of our greatest presidents.

Just sayin'

 

[The Paperboy]

Bush's economic policies.

Jillian,

What economic policy are you referring to?

 

[The Paperboy]

Most of what happened under Reagan was a carry over fromt he past. History, once the right wing revisionists are stopped, will show him to be an average president who could act well on the telly.

Reagan was just Nixon with speaking skills and no 5 o-clock shadow.

Iran Contra forever.

You must be living in an alternate reality that thinks 21% interest rates are a good thing.