Posted 1 year, 0 months ago in 
Loading ...
“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves” –Abraham Lincoln.
Many of our present troubles are caused by ignoring the principles in this quote. Now many are feeling like the free enterprise system has failed, and it is time for change. In the present state of chaos, it is natural to be discouraged, to look in a different direction for answers. But take the time to research it. The fact is, free enterprise was handicapped till it went lame, but don’t shoot it yet!
Start with the Community Reinvestment Act: a credit system coerced into making politically correct, not financially sound, loans, which were funneled into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Facts: dumb ole President Bush went to Congress 17 times and asked for reform of Freddie and Fanny. Republicans agreed. McCain sponsored legislation.Obama says he talked to the Fed.
Fact: it was a Democratic cause, and they blocked reform. When it came crashing down, Mr. Dodd has shrewdly selected a series of witnesses who, like him, contributed to the mess, and have every incentive to point fingers elsewhere, according to the Wall St. Journal.
If they win the White House, Democrats will have a complete control. Consider carefully. Vote logic, not emotion. Things are not always what they seem. Read again what Abe Lincoln said.
DEBRA MOORLAND
Glade Park
100 Responses to “Vote with logic, not emotion”
Posted October 27th, 2008 at 6:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Please note that “Obama talked”, meaning he did nothing else. He takes no political risks. Same as his “call me if you need me” attitude during the financial crisis. McCain went back to Washington DC to see what was going on first hand, and sided with the Republicans in holding things up till at least a few conditions were put on the thing. Ironically the Democrats were upset with him for blowing the deal they had cooked up with President Bush. What was caught in that first draft: in a time of national crisis, they slipped Acorn in to profit from this mess. It must be close to someone’s heart. No wonder Obama was content to sit this one out. There is video of him making campaign promises to Acorn during a big rally. He promises them they will have a stake in setting things up after the election. It is on YOUTUBE. Search Obama and Acorn. After all, they helped to intimidate bankers into giving sub-prime loans (groups of people would walk in to stand and stare a bankers - would you feel threatened?), and are helping to get Obama elected. And McCain was hurt by going back to Washington? It is an upside down world right now. I so agree with this letter. Better go back to Abe, and old fashioned common sense.
Posted October 27th, 2008 at 7:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
NativeGal,
I find it very sad commentary on the state of the electorate, both in Ms Moorlands letter and in your response.
Posted October 28th, 2008 at 10:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
But they dutifully followed the party line and that’s what is important. Blind obeisance to the master. No need for thought and research. Follow orders and everything will work out fine. The age of zombie robots is in full bloom.
Posted October 28th, 2008 at 11:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“vote logic, not emotion”…I totally agree.
This letter however demonstrates not much of the former, but VERY much of the latter…exactly what the McCain campaign is hoping for. Keep reitterating the main McCain / Palin talking points, then throw in fear, (fear of change and fear of losing something you think you might have), and there you have the last week of the McCain campaign’s focus…..the American people, (generally) are smarter than that.
Posted October 28th, 2008 at 12:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The letter writer is entirely correct.
Unfortunately this race was over two months ago when the stock market tanked. It makes little difference to many independent voters, particularly those who always vote on the basis of emotion, that the problems which have led to this crisis were NOT caused by Republicans. All they know is that we have a serious problem, a Republican is currently in the White House, and therefore, they conclude, a change is needed. Even if that means that the most inexperienced, most unqualified candidate in memory will be elected.
So be it. I, for one, wish him the best. It will not make me happy to see Obama fail. The stakes are too high.
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 10:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nice try, jacob. Take a look at the ACTIONS of Obama and the Democrats (not the spin) and read Abe’s quote. It is a lesson on what not to do, and they are doing it all. And John McCain is not manufacturing fear. Everyone is feeling it already. Obama is the expert at using that fear to take this country in the direction of European style socialism, which is a proven disaster. The last thing we need is to turn more of our lives over to the government. The Republican’s mistake was not sticking to their fiscally conservative values, and blowing the whistle on the Democrats and their sub-prime mess before it collapsed our economy. We need to take our lumps, and get back to the basics. That is logic.
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 10:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Obama is an expert on using that fear to take this country in the direction of European style socialism, which is a proven disaster.”
Examples? (both of his using fear and that European socialism has been a disaster)
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 11:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Obviously, if European-style socialism worked, Europe would still be around today.
Oh, wait…
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 11:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Neither Republicans nor Democrats should be absolved from the financial crisis.
But if Republicans tried to hobble Freddie / Fannie it is likely because these institutions were involved in helping lower income people to become homeowners, and if Dems tried to support these institutions it was likely for the same reason.
Democrats in general like to help empower the “lower class.” Republicans in general say let them eat cake.
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 11:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, the fact of the matter is that countries like England, Germany, and France have tried a form of socialism, have seen its failures, and are moving away from it.
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 11:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have seen socialism “in person” and, as a born and raised American it turned my stomach. If I thought that was what Obama wanted for our country I would not vote for him.
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 11:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, one major difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the former believe the constitution guarantees a middle class life irrespective of personal effort whereas Republicans believe that the constitution guarantees freedom and opportunity for those who are willing to put forth the effort necessary to succeed. That is why Obama wants to take from the rich and redistribute to those who already pay no tax.
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 11:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, with all due respect your perspective on Democrats is dead wrong.
The real difference is, the Democrat will give a starving man a sandwich and a hand up, while the Republican will spit on him, laugh and walk on.
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 11:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, that’s a pretty sweeping generalization about Democrats and middle class gurantees. There may be some Democrats who believe that but I’ve never met one. Making sure that opportunity is availble to any one who works hard, yes, but your statement is politcal hogwash. Where has Obama said “wants to take from the rich and redistribute to those who already pay no tax”? No fanciful interpetations of your own, those words.
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 12:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
There is, of course, a middle ground between pure capitalism and pure socialism. The bailout package recently passed by both parties is socialistic in nature, but is not pure socialism.
In my experience, Conservatives more than Liberals seem to ignore that middle ground in favor of a black/white viewpoint. There are advantages to limited socialism, just as there are advantages in limited capitalism.
Of course, the same goes for the labels “Conservative” and “Liberal.” I would venture to guess that very few people are strictly Conservative or Liberal on every viewpoint. The vast majority will be conservative on some issues while liberal on others, and somewhere in between on most.
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 12:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, much of what you say is true, though I would argue that there is a clearly defined line by which socialism may be defined; it has much less to do with tax structure than with government control and nannyism though.
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 12:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“native gal” I didn’t say that McCain was “manufacturing” fear, my point is that he follows the Bush adminstration’s strategy of using fear to influence your support. Your continued insistence that the sub-prime meltdown was solely the Dems fault only underlines the Repubs and your own desperation to paint any one other than Repubs as dangerous for this country. That is instilling fear, and it is a so-called “rovian” tactic…..nice try, yourself, though, “nativegal”.
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 4:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As an 86 year old AA - and a Democratic voter for the last 60 years
-these are troubling
problems for me - I just may sit out this election:
l. Colin Powell - a Bush - Sec of State that got us into this war
stating Weapons of Mass Destruction which proved erroneous — endorses
Obama who readily accepts the endorsement - wasn’t Obama against the
war in Iraq?
2. Everyone thinks Bill Ayers is not a situation that is disturbing -
people died because of him just like McVeigh - only not as many.
Wright, Rezko and all the other associations - if you know nothing
about a person’s character, which we don’t about Sen Obama - you are
obliged to look at his friends.
3. Bothers me that Sen Obama did not know that Wright was a racist,
that Ayers was a terrorist, that Rezko was a crook, that the media advised Acorn was
involved with voting fraud - what does he know?
4. Race baiting constantly - any question you ask about anything from
Sen Obamas past makes you a racist, or a bitter person clinging to
your religion and guns.
5. World Trade Center - dedication ceremony - where was Michelle??
6. Obamas speeches saying that he was raised by a SINGLE parent and
they were poor - actually his mother was single for only two years
between her first and second husband - He was also raised by his
upper-middle class grandparents in a high
rise condominium in Hawaii, where he attended a private college
prepatory school. His grandmother, was the vice president of a bank.
7. Joe the Plumber - he is middle class - he is one of us - he is
struggling - yet
Sen Obama is snubbing his nose at him.
8. Logan Act - Rico Act - why do we have ACTS if no one is
responsible for their involvement - Sen Obama,as proven, talked with
Iraq regarding pull out time frame of troops there.
9. The media announces Sixteen States have reported Voter Fraud through Acorn
representatives - what happened to our every vote counts and how can
we possibly use us as an example of a democratic government to other countries.
10. Sen Obamas constant flip-flopping based on where he is giving a
speech and documented - from oil drilling, FISA, Prochoice,
equal pay for women, look at his own staff, taxes, health care
platform, NAFTA, Campaign finance reform, gun ownership, Iraq troop
withdrawals.
11. “People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to
serve;. I will set a goal for all American middle and high school
students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college
students to perform 100 hours of service a year.”
12. Reported illegal contributions to the campaign.
13. Mr. Obama supports a requirement for both men and women
to register with the Selective Service, while Mr. McCain doesn’t
think women should have to register.” The draft next??
14. What Jessie Jackson said about Israel and Sen Obama:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_o_jesse_knows_133450.htm?page=0
15. 401K tax removal plan - spread the wealth???
16. Obamas vision for Social Security would be a “welfare program” -
low earners would receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes -
can you say broke??
17. Obama states that he voted against Iraq War - he was not even a
US Senator to vote against it yet - in fact - before his campaign he
was in the Senate less than 9 months - what kind of experience is
that??
18. American Media - you have to go to Canada or Europe to find
out the truth - why is everything being surpressed here, and why are
THEY deciding who to elect, through the biased media and polls.
Change he has refused to define - Sen Obama used change to advance
his career - Sen McCain used his career to advance change - Country
before Party.
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 4:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John: “Where has Obama said “wants to take from the rich and redistribute to those who already pay no tax”?”
His tax plan is to increase taxes on the top 5% and send checks to 40% of the population who pay no taxes. What do you call that?
Or perhaps you are not familiar with his tax proposal? Is that possible?
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 4:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, as I think you know I have made it a point to study both candidates’ tax proposals but have never found anything (affirmative or non) about Obama sending “tax refund” checks to people who pay no income tax.
Since you have stated this repeatedly, can you help me out and post a link or something as to where you are getting this info?
Thanks in advance.
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 5:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash,
From what I gather Obama is proposing a $500 dollar tax credit for all taxpayers. This tax credit will be refundable so that people that don’t pay tax can get a check for $500. Of the 46 million or so people that don’t pay a tax most are young (burger flippers) or old (Pensioners). I don’t know whether this a one time credit or whether it will happen every year. The people that use this as an issue, “Redistribution of Wealth,” claim that they are being forced to give their money to those that don’t work. Of course, they are getting the tax credit also so it is a wash. Meanwhile, those that have incomes in the range of 20k$ to 250k$ will also get substantial tax savings compared to McCain. See the Obama tax calculator…
http://taxcut.barackobama.com/?source=sem-pm-fts-tc-search-us&gclid=CJW0zuvHzZYCFRKAxgodRkMRxg
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 5:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash: “Bullish, as I think you know I have made it a point to study both candidates’ tax proposals but have never found anything (affirmative or non) about Obama sending “tax refund” checks to people who pay no income tax.”
They are not tax refund checks because 40% of folks pay ZERO tax.
Many of them already get what is called an income tax credit. They get a check even though they pay no federal income taxes.
Obama’s tax plan will increase what they get by %500/person who is working but pays no tax.
This is not a tax cut for these folks because they do not pay taxes. It is a gift paid to them by those making more than $250,000. It is plain and simple REDISTRIBUTION of income.
Obama defends this redistriubtion by saying that these folks pay sales taxes and contribute to social security. He is turning social security into a welfare program.
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 5:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, I have not read Obama’s tax plan because it is meaningless until it goes through congress. As I mentioned earlier, I’m betting on his intelligence, character and general intentions as discerned from his statements. If you consider trying to change the undue emphasis on shifting more of the tax burden to those with lower incomes as “income redistribution” you are absolutely right and you can quote me on that any place you choose. That “redistribution” has been goung on upwards for years and is drying up the middle class, the main engine of our economy.
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 5:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish,
Have you looked at what your tax savings would be under Obama”s plan vs McCain’s plan using the tax calculator?
http://taxcut.barackobama.com/?source=sem-pm-fts-tc-search-us&gclid=CJW0zuvHzZYCFRKAxgodRkMRxg
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 6:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, please, it is not shifting the tax burden to those with lower income. They don’t have any tax burden. NONE.
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 6:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm, I fully agree with the concept of reducing tax burdens on lower income tax payers. But once those tax payers are no longer tax payers, I am not in favor of sending them checks by taking that money from other tax payers.
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 7:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish–#25, those are not the people the tax burden is being shifted to. It is the great middle class, the engine of our economy. I can’t speak to people who don’t pat taxes or get tax credits that result in checks. If that is happening, and I don’t know one way or the other, should it be stopped? What happens to them then? Are they all free-loaders? What would cutting them off do? Force them to get better jobs? Are they all without jobs?
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 7:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, you say “Many of them already get what is called an income tax credit. They get a check even though they pay no federal income taxes.”
They get it already, even though they do not pay any income tax? And if they ARE getting it already Under W, how is it Obama’s fault?
I am really not up on the details of people who earn nothing and therefore pay no income tax, and how they would receive an income tax refund on zero. That makes no sense.
So I must repeat my request. Please help educate me! Can you supply any evidence of this happening, even just a link? That would be great and thanks again in advance.
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 7:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash,
Here is I think a credible link to Obamas tax policy. You need earned income to get the Obama tax credit. The refundable credit is called ” Making Work Pay Credit .” I think what annoys some people is that you can get the credit even if you don’t pay tax. The $500 is a ceiling.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/election_issues_matrix.cfm
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 8:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thank you rm …
That answers my question perfectly; though I had read through this site earlier today, this is a detail I had somehow missed.
So it is true that under Obama’s plan, people who work and earn very little could get a little check back even if they do not pay income tax … OK …
My first reaction is, this is an INCENTIVE to work, even if it is that piddly McD job down the street … and how can that be a bad thing?! How can people begrudge someone who earns $8100 a year, a stinking $500 check that may help them buy some vegetables or diapers or catch up with the utility bill?!
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 8:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
John and Ash, Obama’s tax proposal INCREASES the amount of money that individuals, who already pay ZERO in taxes, by $500/worker.
Let me repeat that in case it is not clear. Obama’s tax proposal INCREASES the amount of money that the goivernment will send to folks who already pay NO TAXES. It is a gift.
The money comes from increasing taxes on the upper 5%. It is nothing BUT income redistribution. It is a Robin Hood policy. Steal from the rich to give to the poor and the lower middle class. And it is NOT a one-year deal.
INCOME REDISTRIBUTION. And, let me assure you, whatever part of the Obama tax plan becomes law, this part certainly will, given the composition of the next congress.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 8:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Again, I do not begrudge this helping hand. These are WORKING Americans.
The checks go to the lowest of our wage earners who don’t make enough to even register on our current scale of income tax obligations.
The opposition implies that this relief goes to people who are sitting around doing nothing. No. It goes to people who are working.
Sounds like a GREAT idea to me!
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 8:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish,
For the duration of the Bush administration, income has been redistributed upward. This effort by Obama is designed to stop that redistribution. Since I do not make anywhere near $250,000 a year, I support it, wholeheartedly.
You continue to support income redistribution, yourself. I am glad that you are happy subsidizing the wealthy. I am not.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 8:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here is an excerpt from John A. Farrell at U.S. News & World Report. It neatly debunks the socialism charge. As Farrell notes, Obama’s proposed rate on the wealthiest Americans will still be lower than it was under Reagan.
“… the Bush[Sr.]-Clinton tax hikes brought in so much money during the high-tech boom that the federal budget was balanced and the deficit erased. And in the fall of 2000, both Al Gore and George W. Bush offered big tax cuts if elected.
The Gore-Bush argument was a preview of the Obama-McCain dispute. Gore wanted to target tax cuts for the middle class; Bush urged a bigger, across-the-board tax cut that was tilted toward the wealthiest Americans.
Bush won. His tax cuts (which McCain voted against) passed Congress and contributed to a massive redistribution of riches in America. Wealth moved out of the bank accounts of working and middle-class families and into those of the wealthiest Americans. The top rate was down to 35 percent.
To cut taxes as deeply as they wished, without releasing a river of red ink on the books, the administration and its allies in Congress set time limits on almost all the Bush tax cuts, which will expire during the next presidency.
If Obama or McCain don’t do anything, we’ll all be facing much higher taxes. Not a good idea when the nation is trying to climb out of a recessionary slump. So both parties have promised tax cuts, and we the voters have a classic opportunity to gauge each party’s priorities.
As he made the transition from maverick to Republican presidential hopeful, McCain concluded that the across-the-board tax cuts that he opposed back in 2001 now look pretty good, and he has vowed to permanently extend them, and cut various other taxes, at a cost of $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years.
Obama has responded with a Gore-like approach, which favors the middle class and leaves the top rate where it was during the years of Clinton prosperity—at 39.6 percent—lower than after Reagan’s first big tax cut and ridiculously undeserving of the charges of “socialism” or “destroyer of wealth.” “
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 8:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry, here’s the link too
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/john-farrell/2008/10/28/barack-obama-is-no-socialist.html
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 9:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, income redistribution is a characteristic of a democratic society. We all pay taxes to support the cost of government. The key is, which income level groups contribute what percentage of the total. It goes far beyond income tax and whatever the formula is for that. Various kinds of taxation, fees and tax breaks are strewn throughout the system. Political decisions are made about every part of the system to skew the burden back and forth between groups. We’ve been living with a status quo that benefits the upper end of the income strata. That will change in an Obama administration. The people will decide whether they think the current status quo is beneficial to most Americans. NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, INCOME REDISTRIBUTION, UP OR DOWN, WILL HAPPEN.If you believe our country is destroyed by trying to help the less fortunate, so be it. The voters will decide. This time, the chances are that you are in the minority. Most people seem to think that it is better to look out for one another than taking the position “I’m all right, screw those that need help. They brought it upon themselves”. YES, OBAMA IS GUILTY OF ADVOCATING INCOME REDISTRIBUTION, BUT SO IS MC CAIN, IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. SO, WHAT IS THIS THREAD ALL ABOUT?
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 9:40 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish,
To be more precise the Obama, ” Making Work Pay Credit “, is 6.2 percent of earnings up to a maximum earnings of $8100 per worker. So if someone is a part time greeter at WalMart and has earned income of $5000 their tax credit will be $310. Or a kid helping to pay his tuition to college works part time at McDonalds and has earned income of $3750 his tax credit will be $232.50. An argument might be made that rather then creating the ” Making Work Pay Credit ” the ” Earned Income tax credit” could have been adjusted.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 10:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, I had no illusions of trying to convince any of my liberal friends on this board that income redistribution is wrong. After all, it is one of the main tenets of liberalism. I just wanted to make sure we all agree that income redistribution is Obama’s goal.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 10:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog: “…that income redistribution is wrong. After all, it is one of the main tenets of liberalism.”
I keep asking what the individual means by “liberalism”, yet get no answer. If he is speaking of “political liberalism”, he should by now have come to the realization that such has nothing to do with economics. As such, it is NOT a “main tenet of liberalism”, much as many of the “flapping jaws” on talk radio and television would like to make it so. Those who listen to that drivel are being guided by the “intellectual short hairs” of emotionalism.
It would seem that those who decry “political liberalism”, without knowing what is its meaning (never having made the effort to learn), are doing all of us a great disservice. If they had bothered to learn (instead of assuming that they know, they might have discerned that the opposite of “political liberalism” IS NOT “conservatism”, it is “totalitarianism.”
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 11:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, why don’t you stop your nonsense?
I am not going to define liberalism for you. Everyone here know what we are talking about. And so do you.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 11:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, “I just wanted to make sure we all agree that income redistribution is Obama’s goal.” And it’s not McCain’s, just in a different direction? Is he a nasty “liberal”, too?
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 11:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog states: “I am not going to define liberalism for you.”
And why would that be? It would seem that if someone uses a word, they should at least be able to define it, and in that way, communication might be possible. Or perhaps it could be that the individual believes otherwise,and considers it of no import. That is his choice, but let him not then pretend that his opinions are worthy of very serious consideration, as we don’t know what he is saying, or even attempting to say.
Perhaps bullishfrog missed the recent article by the publisher of the Daily Sentinel, Mr. Alex Taylor, who complained about how the language becomes corrupted during the political season. He was only partially right. We have been “corrupting” the language over decades, and not only during the “political season.”
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 11:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, McCain is not taking income earned by the lower and middle classes and gifting it to the upper class. McCain is, in fact, lowering taxes for everyone, as Bush did. But the difference is that McCain is not proposing to mail checks to anyone who is already free of a tax burden.
But let’s not waste time on McCain’s proposals. He is going back to the Senate. As I have stated numerous times, I have already conceded this election.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 11:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, you would be doing me a big favor if you ignored my opinions completely.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 12:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog: “RL, you would be doing me a big favor if you ignored my opinions completely.”
To what purpose? It would seem that if the individual wishes to continue posting, he should also expect his opinions to be challenged. Or, does he believe that he should not be, that others should accept his opinions unquestioned? That, I would submit, is an unjustified and unwarranted expectation in any open forum, or even in serious “one on one” discourse.
If bullishfrog, or anyone else does not wish to be challenged, it is their right to either not post, or ignore the challenges, not ask another not to challenge them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with challenging another’s ideas or concepts and, that does not in any way constitute an “ad hominem” attack, much as many believe that it does.
The rule some of us follow is best summed up as follows. There is a very famous saying that “An unexamined life is not worth living”. To paraphrase that somewhat,and apply it to the world of ideas, it is also true that “An unexamined belief is not worth believing.”
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 12:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “If bullishfrog, or anyone else does not wish to be challenged, it is their right to either not post, or ignore the challenges”
Bullishfrog wishes to ignore RL’s challenge. If RL does not know what is meant by the term liberal, in today’s political context, bullishfrog does not believe it is his responsibility to explain it to him.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 1:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, part of “income redistribution” is wages versus profits. Profits make the system work and are a neccessity for a successful business. But the question is, when worker earnings are stagmant or dropping and profits, or at least dividends and capital gains somehow are streaming upwards, are workers getting ther fair share? Productivity is supposedly up considerably and that is supposed to also raise up the worker but it hasn’t, but it has at the top of the income heap. So whose money is it that might be redistributed downwards? Or work delivered but not compensated for? It might be considered that those downwind should have it had to begin with but did not due to government and industry pracices that were damaging to the workers power, and therefor their bargaining power. What ever the government has to “distribute” is dependent on who supplied it in the first place and how that was determined. Maybe those at the top have rigged the game so that, not only have they influenced worker bargaining power but influenced their total contribution to making the country operate. Actually, that’s not a MAYBE, they have. Class-warfare? Damn right!Total income distribution has, and will always be, what it is all about and the “redistribution” you are so concerned about is always taking place and always will.In both directions depending on how the political winds are blowing. We are not living in an old-fashioned monarchy where all things are mandated by the king. Politics matter in who gets what.
pofits mke the system wor
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 1:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog states: “Bullishfrog wishes to ignore RL’s challenge. If RL does not know what is meant by the term liberal, in today’s political context…”.
So, are we to assume that bullishfrog believes that words can be “re-defined” to suit a particular condition? That would appear to be the case.
We have to wonder if he would redefine “pi” to the 23/7, because it is convenient to do so, and it is “popular” or “in vogue” at a particular time? Perhaps we could, in accounting, redefine the meaning of the terms “credit” and “debit” using the same standards.
The truth is that, as in any field, accuracy in the use of terms is important, and has nothing to do with “feeling”, “I want it to mean this”, or popularity. One should always strive to be as accurate as possible in the use of language, and terms are not defined emotionally. The more the emotion, the less the accuracy, and thereby reliability.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 1:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John uses the term: “Class-warfare”.
It is something that some our “conservative” fellow citizens accuse others of bringing up, or attempting to foster. Were they better versed in history, they would realize that “class warfare” is caused by the “haves” and not by the “have nots”. That has always been true.
The best thing to do is to avoid it in the first place, and that can be done by the realization that when the imbalance becomes too great, something has to give. Unfortunately, the “haves”, in any society, always believe that it cannot happen to them; i.e. “They would never allow it to happen.” Those who do are merely deluding themselves.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 2:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, you were presented with some very highly regarded, nonpartisan expert interpretations and facts about Obama’s proposed tax plans by theTax Policy Center, U.S. News and World Report, etc.
Rather than responding to these facts and observations you chose to cry “liberals.”
There is no sense even trying to argue with that silliness.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 2:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash posted: “Rather than responding to these facts and observations you chose to cry “liberals.”
Therein lies the problem, which is why I keep requesting what people mean by the terms they use. And, in the case of the term “liberal”, so much “emotion” has been attached to the term that is has become almost a “crie de coeur” by those who have absolutely no concept of its meaning, but have to use something to label others. It is not too difficult to ascertain what are the sources of their “information”. And that is what is at times called “right wing” talk radio or the “flapping jaws” we see on their talk shows.
Some of us watch and listen to them, and are not at all impressed with any of them, as all too often they devolve into nothing more than shouting matches, as if the more words they use, and the louder they shout lends them more credibility. Actually, for the thinking person, it does the exact opposite.
It would seem that the only book they have ever read is “Winning through Intimidation”, and believe that intensity somehow makes them “right”. That is why, with such individuals, the only thing possible is argument, and no productive discourse.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 2:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
IMO Bullish is an individual very capable of discussing the issues, judging from past experience. That is why I expected better than the “liberal” taunt in the middle of what was a civil, fact based discussion. Maybe it is yet to come.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 2:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, you directed me to an article written in US News and World report that includes the following statement:
“Under the Obama plan, the bottom 20 percent of households in America would get a tax cut of $567, and the middle 20 percent would see their taxes drop by $1,042. But the richest 1 percent of Americans (those earning an average of $1.5 million a year) would see taxes go up by $116,000.”
Now, maybe you are not aware of this, but the bottom 40% of Americans pay no federal income taxes. Let me repeat that for the umpteenth time.
THE BOTTOM 40% OF AMERICANS PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.
If you disagree with this statement, let’s stop right there because you would be denying the facts and we have nothing further to discuss.
Now, the writer of this article claims that the bottom 20% would,under the Obama tax package, get a $567 TAX CUT. How does someone get a TAX CUT when they do not pay federal income taxes to begin with?
This TAX CUT is not a TAX CUT, it is a gift. A check mailed to these folks and it is paid for by those whose taxes are being raised. Those taxes are being raised for the purporse, and ONLY purpose, of taking money away from the rich and giving it to the bottom 40%. IT IS NOT A TAX CUT, IT IS A GIFT.
I do not doubt that you favor this. That is not the point. You are welcome to your opinion. The only point I’ve been trying to make here is that income is being redistributed, by check, from the top to the bottom.
Now I realize that this board is now filled with liberals and many of them do not like to be called that. I don’t care.
I am a moderate Republican, I disagree with this redistribution, and I am not asking the Delta psychoanalyst to define moderate for me.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 2:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
What do you think would stimulate the economy more, giving 200,000,000 people in this country some extra money to spend or letting that 1% keep a bit more of their stash?
As an aside, based on the TV commercials running right now, “liberal” seems to be a dirty word.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 4:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, the issue we are discussing here is income redistribution not a short-term economic stimulus which is a different matter. But if you want to address what would help the economy, sending folks a check for $500 was done earlier this year. You can see how much help that has provided to the economy.
Is the term “liberal” any more of a dirty word than the term “right wing” or “Christian right”? I don’t think so. Yesterday I saw congressman Bernie Sanders on TV. He is a proud socialist and doesn’t mind being called a socialist. So why is it that some folks who are in the left wing of the Democratic party offended at the word liberal? Maybe you can help me out and explain that to me.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 4:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish,
The reason that such a high percentage of income tax returns have no tax liability is because of credits and deductions in the tax code.
From John McCains tax plan:
” Increase the dependent exemption by two-thirds (phased in by 2016) ”
” Exempt unemployment insurance benefits from tax in 2008 and 2009 for those making less than $100,000 ”
” Suspend rules that require distributions from IRAs at age 70.5 ”
These actions will increase the number of people not paying income tax. So maybe it is not a “Liberal” problem but a bi-partisan problem.
As far as ” Redistribution of Income ” Exxon/Moblie will love this one;
” Reduce maximum corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent (phased in by 2015) “
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 4:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
You didn’t answer my question, but I think you know that.
I was referring to the way “liberal” is used in, for example, Bob Schaffer’s attacks on Mark Udall, the “liberal Denver Democrat”. It is used as though it was a recognized derogatory term.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 4:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog states: “So why is it that some folks who are in the left wing of the Democratic party offended at the word liberal?”
Actually, there is no relationship between the “wing” of any party, and the word “liberal”. And, I for one, am very proud of being a “political liberal”. Of course, when the term is used, I know what it means, and not merely merely from the abbreviated definition found in the dictionary. There is something to be said for studying a subject in depth, and recognizing that they must always be used in their proper context; i.e. what they mean within the discipline in which they are used.
If there is an emotional judgement in political terminology, be the term liberal, consvervative, radical, etc. it was placed there by others, not by those who are serious about a subject matter, or who wish to engage in rational discourse. That may be difficult to accept, especially if an individual has been misusing a term long enough, but it is nonetheless the truth.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 5:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I, too, embrace to term Liberal. You will note the capital “L”.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 5:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm, there is nothing in McCain’s plan that takes money from the rich in order to send a check to folks who pay no taxes.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 6:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish - You said, “there is nothing in McCain’s plan that takes money from the rich in order to send a check to folks who pay no taxes.”
Your statement would imply that there is something inherently wrong with providing assistance to the less fortunate. How unChristian of you!
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 6:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, not sure what part of your question I did not answer. I don’t believe the term liberal is used as a “derogatory” term by republicans. It is not meant as a “character” flaw. It is a short-hand way of summarizing a candidate’s views on political issues. When someone calls a politician being “right wing”, or “right wing Christian”, or “socialist”, or “communist”, it describes a person’s political views. When the organization that rates the views of members of Congress and terms Obama as the most liberal member of Congress, is that derogatory? When the same organization rates a senator as the most “conservative” member of Congress, is that derogatory?
In any case, when I use the term, I don’t intend it to be derogatory.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 6:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish,
Look more careful, the three examples that I gave you will allow more people to pay no tax while still receiving Earned Income Credit. Hence, it will allow money to be taken from the rest of us to send checks to more of those who pay no taxes. Isn’t this your bogeyman?
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 7:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm, the difference is that McCain isnot increasing taxes on the rich in order to reduce taxes on the lower income tax payers. He is not redistributing income.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 7:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ullr: “Your statement would imply that there is something inherently wrong with providing assistance to the less fortunate. How unChristian of you!”
Well, first, I am not Christian. Second, the less fortunate already pay no taxes and get all sorts of assistance, including Medicaid. Third, I give money to charities of my choice to help the truly unfortunate. Fourth, there is no law that states that everyone is entitled to a middle class lifestyle.
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 7:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish,
Under the McCain plan more people will pay no income tax. Who will pay for this short fall? Aren’t these dollars going to come from some ones income? If the highest corporate tax rate gets lowered from 35 percent to 25 percent isn’t this redistributing income? The corporations will be able to retain more of their earnings and pass the savings onto the stock holders who will have more income. Again who will find their income reduced to compensate for the loss of corporate tax money?
Posted October 30th, 2008 at 8:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm, the theory of lowering income taxes is that it improves economic growth, more peope are hired by businesses, and the government sees increased revenues. Following the Bush tax cuts, the government’s revenues reached record levels. That is how you compensate for reducing coorporate taxes. The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 6:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The US does not have one of the highest EFFECTIVE tax rates in the world. There are so many offsets to taxes that the rate that corporations in almost all cases is much lower. Think Colorado severance tax. It’s effective rate is much lower because of the tax credits. Secondly, the Bush tax cuts are not why revenues increased. All of the deficit financing pumped money into the economy and the resulting tax revenues are what caused the increase. The supply-side “magic” has been thoroughly disproven over the last eight years just as it was in the Reagan years. In both cases, borrowing and defiits created the “magic”. More Republican talking points Kool Aid.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 7:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
John: “Secondly, the Bush tax cuts are not why revenues increased. All of the deficit financing pumped money into the economy and the resulting tax revenues are what caused the increase.”
What proof do you have of that?
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 8:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog - This argument will soon be moot. On November 4th, the people Willis refers to as “the dregs of society” will gain control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress. For at least the next 4 years, Barack, Nancy and Harry will be shaping fiscal policy. You need to come to grips with the “new” reality.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 8:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
What proof do you have that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue? If you consider the huge borrowing that went on being pumped into the economy what do you think the outcome would be? How do you seperate the amounts of the Bush cuts from the impact of the borrowed money and then make a judgement of their impact seperate of the deficit-needed borrowed money? Bush’s own economic adviser, Mankiw (sp?) has admitted that the cuts only bring in about half their amount in new revenue and other economists have found similar findings.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 9:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ullr, I have said many times on this blog, and you apparently missed it, that I have conceded this election. The most inexperienced, untested, unqualified candidate in recent history will be elected president. Not because he is the better candidate, but because the collpase in the stock market will lead “independents” to vote for change, any change.
But the argument is not moot. Just because the Democrats will have control of government does not mean that the people need to remain silent while liberals rule this country for the next two years.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 9:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
John: “What proof do you have that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue?
It is impossible to prove. But we do know this: taxes were cut and revenues went up. It happened during the Reagan years too.
Until taxes are cut, and revenues go down, YOU have zero basis for YOUR claim.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 1:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, You are kidding, right? Tax cuts affect peoples income and make more available for spending—out of existing income. Borrowed money coming into the system is in addition to normal income enhanced by tax cuts. So where is your accounting for that money coming into the system and what happens to the tax revenue from it’s circulation? It happened in the Bush administration just as it happened in the Reagan years. The tax cuts only didn’t make whatever gains in revenue took place, the borrowed money increased the money in circulation but left deficits and debt in place. Bush 41 was absolutely correct–voo doo economics. I’m afraid it is you who has absolutely zero basis for your talking points claim. Saying something is so doesn’t make it so. Your doctrinaire statement is nonsense.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 1:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, John, you are getting hysterical on me again.
I asked for your proof that cutting taxes was not responsible for increased government revenues. You could not give me any proof and then you asked me to prove my point.
There is no way to prove just how much of the increase in revenues was due to lower taxes and how much to deficit spending.
But in the end, the fact is that taxes were cut and government revenues rose. And, until we have tax cuts that lead to a DROP in government revenues, it is up to you to disprove my claim.
You end your last post by saying that mine is a doctrinaire statement. How do you categorize yours?
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 2:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, not doctrinaire, logic. You blithely skip over the fact that significant outside borrowed revenue comes into the system and still claim that revenue increases are just due to tax cuts?I could give you plenty of documentation but when you totally disregard simple logic, what’s the use? You hang on to your mistaken illogical beliefs and I’ll choose to read non-partisan articles on the subject. In this case it is not even necessary because so much borrowed money entered the economy saying it was because of tax cuts is ludicrous.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 2:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John: “You blithely skip over the fact that significant outside borrowed revenue comes into the system and still claim that revenue increases are just due to tax cuts?”
How can you write this in response to my statement: “There is no way to prove just how much of the increase in revenues was due to lower taxes and how much to deficit spending.”
If you are going to write a response without reading what I write, what’s the use in pursuing this?
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 2:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John states: “…not doctrinaire, logic.”
John, that is expecting far too much. Some of us, when using a hypothesis or theory, look at the results to see if what we are attempting is working. Then, if we see that it is not, we change our approach. The doctrinaire and ideologically entrapped either never set up a monitoring system or, if they do, either ignore unfavorable results, or continue with the “But, it’s supposed to work” rationale.
The “tax cut for the wealthy scenario results in progress” scenario nothing but a gasp scenario of the “trickle down theory”, long since disproved, even by its implementer, David Stockman. True, one may elevate the economy but only temporarily and it then falls back down.
To use an example from the physical world, it is like attempting to drive a vehicle with “square tires.” Given enough power, it is enough to move it over the resistance and raise it to a corner But, it is bound to come crashing back down to the flat part. It is even possible to drive such a vehicle over some distance but, it will also destroy the entire vehicle, as it was not built to handle the shaking and vibrating.
Now, I do not expect some to appreciate the analogy, but hopefully one or two may.
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 2:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Listen Up, Home Town coloradians! You have been taken over by transplants from other states! They have brought their trash with them! They did not bring one job to the great state of Colorado, they had nothing to offer, but their Drugs, Crime and Trash! All the people that are defending Obama a big majority of them are people that are not originally from colorado. So here is my point, Today the news came out about Obama bankrupting the Coal Mining, not my words His Words to be exact, and he is not the least bit shy of admitting it will raise everyones electric prices higher than ever before seen, what would Colorado be without that product? You can continue being foolish and think this guy is great and the only changes you will be getting are drastic changes that would shut down Grand Junctions growth, and you will be stuck with the outsiders who don’t have to worry about such things because they came in with money and they will watch Grand Junction die with money in their products, those people came and bought their political positions and you sit back and let it happen and you are willing to see it happen in an even bigger measure.
I am asking you as a woman born and raised in Colorado for you to seek and go back to your roots of our Home being the greatest ever! Stop sleeping while another stranger comes in to make things worse.
Use those brains I know my friends and neighbors from time gone by and keep Obama out of the presidental position.
Vote Mccain/Palin 08
Keep your Freedoms, Your Electricity, Your Paycheck, Let the others keep the CHANGE!
Stand up and speak louder than those who don’t care
VOTE VOTE VOTE!!
Latest News, Voting registrations found strewn on highway in Florida?
Keep the Crook Out=Obama and Put honest people in the White House
Mccain/Palin!
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 2:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, we have someone who has mastered “cut and paste”
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 2:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
homegrowngirl - You said, “Listen Up, Home Town coloradians! You have been taken over by transplants from other states! They have brought their trash with them!”
No, HGG, we haven’t brought our trash with us, we have brought enlightenment to places such as the Grand Valley, where only darkness had been before. Look to the heavens and rejoice that we have arrived to save you from your wickedness and narrow ways of thinking.
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 2:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “The “tax cut for the wealthy scenario results in progress” scenario nothing but a gasp scenario of the “trickle down theory”, long since disproved, even by its implementer, David Stockman. True, one may elevate the economy but only temporarily and it then falls back down.”
Wow, Laitres decided to address an issue rahter than just throw out abuse at those who disagree with him. And, he should have stuck to his abuse only posts because when he deals with issues he displays his toal lack of knowledge of the subject.
The tax cuts that have been put in place cut taxes for EVERYONE who PAY taxes. It helped to remove a lot of folks in the lower rungs from the tax paying rolls. It is different from OBAMA’s propsed “tax cuts” which are phony since what they do, in large part, is mail chcks to folks who pay no taxes at all.
Then Laitres acknowledges that the tax cuts lift the economy, but he then adds that it does so only temporarily before the economy falls back again. Wow, what a genious. Laitres has discovered the economic cycle. He has discovered that recessions still happen. Perhaps Laitres has a new theory that raising taxes on the wealthy, and sending checks to folks who pay no taxes, will eliminate recessions. The man should be nominated for the Nobel Prize in economics.
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 2:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, do you understand that under Obama’s proposal, the tax on the wealthiest Americans will be restored to just BELOW the rate that it was under Reagan?
Also that his proposal will cost about 2/3, or one trillion less that the proposal of McCain’s (which is to further cut taxes, but ONLY for the wealthiest Americans).
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 2:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Just think Ash, the Reagan tax cuts gave this nation the longest peacetime economic growth in the history of this nation.
It was still growing until the democrats resumed control of both houses of congress, then they set about destroying the economy just to make you feel bad so you would vote for them.
Worked didn’t it?
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis, you are confusing massive debt with actual prosperity.
Reagan dropped taxes, then hiked them (in the face of a bad recession in 1982), then dropped them again before he left office, leaving us with a tremendous deficit.
This deficit so threatened our national stability that Bush Sr. broke his “read my lips” vow, raised the maximum tax on the wealthiest Americans (to 39.9), and set us on the path to pay down the national debt. It was one of the most patriotic things a president has done in my lifetime because in doing so Bush Sr. knowingly sacrificed his re-election for the benefit of our country.
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 3:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, I conceded this election more than a month ago so whatever McCain’s tax plan might be is irrelevant to me at this point.
I am for a strong economy. I do not believe that raising taxes helps the economy. I believe that cutting taxes, not only improves economic growth, but also results in increased tax revenues to the government.
Tax revenues to the government ROSE after the Reagan tax cuts AND the Bush tax cuts. Tax revenues were at record highs after the Bush tax cuts. Liberal Democrats disagree that tax cuts were the factor that led to increased tax revenues, but they cannot prove that. Until a cut in taxes REDUCES tax revenues, it is their burden to prove their case.
I believe that for many Liberals (and I use that term, rather than Denmocrats, because there are Democrats who agree with me on this)feel that raising taxes on the “rich” is the “right thing to do”, even if it does not result in increased government revenues. Obama said exactly that during one of the debates regarding capital gains taxes. And his tax plan calls for raising taxes on the rich for the primary purpose of redistributiong income, NOT as a way to increase government revenues that may be used to lower the deficit or help Social Security or Medicare move towards solvency.
Now, with an overwhelming majority in the Congress, liberals will push for tax increases that go way, way, above what Obama has been discussing. And it won’t be just on the rich. I am convinced of that. But, if there is anything good that will come out of the current financial crisis, it is that those tax increases will be delayed for a while. Only a complete fool would seek tax increases in the middle of a deep recession.
So, Ash, we’ll see what happens. The only good thing I can say, from my perspective, is that if this Congress passes big tax increases, Republicans will be back in charge in 2012 and they will cut taxes again.
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 3:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash: “This deficit so threatened our national stability that Bush Sr. broke his “read my lips” vow, raised the maximum tax on the wealthiest Americans (to 39.9), and set us on the path to pay down the national debt. It was one of the most patriotic things a president has done in my lifetime because in doing so Bush Sr. knowingly sacrificed his re-election for the benefit of our country.”
With all due respect, Ash, Bush Sr. was FORCED by Democrats to raise taxes in order to avoid shutting down the government. Democrats then used that as a weapon to defeat him in the next election. They stabbed him in the back.
But, Bush raised taxes in exchange for a very key congressional agreement that new spending programs could only be brought up in the future if they were paid for. That was the key to being able to bring the defict down during the Clinton years. Reagan was never able to get the congress to hold the line on spending.
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 3:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, please get your history correct.
Reagan cut taxes and doubled the income to the US Treasury.
Unbridled spending by the democrats that controlled congress with a veto proof majority spend us into the deficit.
It is historical fact Ash. NOT OPINION!
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 3:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, we both agree that we will have to see what will happen. Check out the below excerpt from the Washington Post in 2006. I believe some of the conditions described at the end provide a clue to what happened since: investors, consumers and government alike acting like pigs rolling in mud.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601121_pf.html
“… Over the past decade, the budget deficit has tracked the economy with seeming indifference to federal tax policy, shrinking during good times and swelling during downturns. The Treasury last saw a huge influx of unexpected revenue in the 1990s, after the Clinton administration and a Democratic Congress raised taxes.
In 2000, the economy was booming and the budget was in surplus when Bush campaigned for president on a promise to cut taxes. The nation then slid into a recession soon after he took office, a downturn exacerbated by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and big job losses. Tax revenue plunged, spending rose, and the budget swung into deficit.
The White House successfully pushed tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, partly as remedies for an ailing economy. At the same time, the Federal Reserve slashed interest rates to four-decade lows to spur consumer spending. The economy gradually gained steam, growing at a faster-than-average pace of more than 3 percent in 2004 and 2005. The housing market took off, corporate profits surged, the stock market rebounded and many upper-income Americans pocketed big gains….
“The simplest way to think about it, I think, is we know we have growing income inequality, especially at the top,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, a Brookings Institution economist who worked for the Clinton administration. “The very rich are pulling away from the ordinary rich and the middle class. Those very rich people pay higher tax rates. When the distribution of income shifts upward, as it has in recent years, you get a revenue kicker from that.”
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, I could spend a lot of words arguing against some of the conclusions in the article. But let me just say this. I believe that this country needs to (and does)provide the opportunity for any individual to rise, through his own efforts, up the economic ladder.
I believe that is why so many folks from all over the world want to come here. My family came here with nothing when I was 13 and did very well through hard work.
I believe in a safety net, but I do not believe that anyone should be guaranteed a middle class life and I do not believe that the government should play Robin Hood by taking money from those who pay taxes in order to send checks to the 40% of households that pay no taxes. I also do not believe in raising capital gains taxes, even though history shows it does not increase tax revenues, simply because “it is the right thing to do”.
But hey, my guys lost this election, and your guys will now have the opportunity to prove me wrong.
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 4:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, someone who earns $8100 a year will get a $500 check. That does not rocket them into the middle class.
What is more important about Obama’s plan is the tax relief for the middle class, of which McCain offers none (except for doubling the child tax credit, big whoop if you don’t have children or they are grown).
Willis: The deficit grew under Reagan because of his record military spending. The Senate was under Republican control his whole time in office. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (and its subsequent woes on the middle class) were crafted by Reagan and Congress in a bipartisan effort.
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 4:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, somone who makes $8100 a year already gets checks in the form of the earned income tax credit. He will get more. But checks are going to 40% of households who pay no taxes. Trust me, 40% of households earn a lot more than $8100.
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 4:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well honestly Bullish, I can not know whether the person making $8100 will get “more” or if the earned income credit will be adjusted or what. And I can not know about this “40 percent pay no tax” statistic. But I am tired of being the one to post links and credible evidence. If you wanted to join in that would be great. I am not saying you are wrong, just would be interested in seeing where you get the figures. But it takes a lot of time to do these things and I am tired of it, so if yo want to drop it I will be happy to join you.
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 4:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, please, who “makes” $8100? for a 40 hour workweek, that’s $3.89 an hour? I can give you sources but all you need to do is google “40 percent pay no taxes” and you will get sources.
Obama has not denied the fact that his plan will send checks to 40% of households that pay no fedral income taxes. His response is that they pay sales taxes and social security taxes.
Maybe after he takes care of paying those taxes for them he can then get the rich to fund their 401-Ks and their vacations.
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 4:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It is not a matter of googling something and getting sources. It is then picking out the reliable sources from all of the garbage one gets back in return.
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 4:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wrong again Ash.
Yes, Reagan did have to rebuild the military, but his tax cuts provided more than ample funds to do so.
The discretionary spending by the drunken democrats in congress blew the deficit spending through the roof.
It is historical fact.
But, if military spending bothers you so much, did you support carter when he destroyed the military during his incompetent attempt at playing President?
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 4:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OK Ash, I’m willing to rest my case here.
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 5:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis, I would ask you to post proof of your statements but your sources tend to have no credibility.
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 5:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No credibility because your ideology doesn’t allow for facts to enter the discussion Ash.
Everything I have posted is a matter of historical record.
You prefer dailykos too?
Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 5:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I would not cite Dailykos here because it is admittedly biased. Doesn’t mean I do not agree with some of the stuff posted there, but I do think much of it is bunk.
I prefer daily newspapers, major broadcast or cable news channels or nonpartisan, nonprofit think tanks.
Your sources, when you bother to cite any tend toward Rush Limbaugh.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.