(Reality) Who will you pay more taxes with
 

Before reading and responding to this thread please first vote in the following thread: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...ore-taxes.html

Then read this post and answer the poll according to who this article says you will pay more taxes with.









The Washington post did a side by side comparison of both tax plans. The full article can be found here
Obama and McCain Tax Proposals - washingtonpost.com


http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-...8061200193.gif


Please find your income on this chart and report who you would pay more taxes with.

McCain.

$66,355-$111,645... Looks like I pay more with "no new taxes" McCain to the tune of $281.

I didn't vote because I'm Canadian, but what I found interesting is the average decrease in taxes for 60% of taxpayers (the bottom three groups):

• McCain: 0.47%
• Obama: 3.83%

That's interesting. I think Obama's $500 to $1,000 in individual tax savings is significant to this tax group. That, compared to McCain's $20 to $300.

I'd stand to save $779 more with Obama's plan over McCain's. That's worth the better part of a paycheque. Obama's savings alone is pretty much a paycheque's worth of savings. That's a lot. I knew I'd vote for him if I were American. :)

I would still like to know how either Obama or McCain will give tax cuts to people who do not pay federal taxes in the first place. Is Obama going to give them even more free money than they already recieve?

McCain, easily. But it's the nature of a progressive tax scheme that I'm already undercharged - or among those least overcharged - when it comes to taxes. Obama won't buy my vote this way. If anything, I consider this a point in McCain's favor.

Direct payments should probably be made to the poor and middle class since they pay little or no income tax and still pay a higher percentage of their income to support our government than the wealthy. Obama's plan seems to be trying to make the system more fair.

Hopefully tax rebates/payments to the lower income groups will more than make up for the higher prices of goods and services they will have to pay due to increased corporate taxes.

I didn't even look before I voted, because I knew I'd pay more under McCain.

*cue creepy smile*
That's not change, you can believe in.

I like McCain up to $111,000. Then I like Obama's plan. Although I think how you make your money should impact how much taxes you pay as well. If someone invents something and starts a business, they should pay less taxes than a CEO that gets a large bonus for having a bunch of workers do a good job.

Overall, this country is in the red and it needs to be brought back into the black. It will require more money each year and fewer loans, bonds, treasury notes and whatever other borrowing schemes they have.

It is interesting peoples perceptions so far put people spread fairly evenly with slightly more for Obama however in reality most people would save under Obama. Is this due to the stereotype that democrats tax more or is it due to the misleading adds run by the McCain camp lately.

My support for Obama doesn't rest on income tax. His overall plans are more fiscally responsible, considering the cost of staying in Iraq for a 4 year McCain presidency.

I think it's the stereotype although that is self-fueled.

I still don't understand how people who don't pay federal tax can have their taxes cut in the first place?:confused:

It's called Earned Income Credit. People who make under a certain amount get a refund, even above and beyond what has been withheld. It is also an option to pay for your daycare by getting early EIC payments.

I'll pay more with Mc Cain than with Obama, but not by much.

I'm probably too old for daycare. :sad:

You know what I meant :D

I've seen on tax forms (also w-4's?) where there is an option to receive early IEC payments to pay for daycare.

Again as with the other question..... both are going to have to raise taxes or make serious serious cuts..... I don't see cuts, so taxes it shall be.

a rational approach to state spending would include a wholesale reassessment of the levels of expenditure on the military, the function of the military in a post cold-war environment, etc....there's no need for anything remotely like present levels of spending apart from the republican strategy of using this area to prop up the economy. without such a reassessment, questions like tax rates are trapped inside an irrational framework. folk will pay in a host of ways more under another republican administration--tax rates will be the least problematic of the types of increased payment.

Getting out of Iraq would be a serious expenditure cut....

A shameless cross-reference with another thread: I.O.U.S.A.: A Horror Film?

You'd figure responsible spending would be paired with raising taxes, considering the state of economic affairs....

I think even if we pull out of Iraq, that money would go to Afghanistan or possibly Iran. I believe if we pulled out of both it would be a great cut but we'd also be paying for those countries reconstructions.

No, either wages go up and we put a cap on CEO perks, pay and benefits or we continue to have the rich getting richer and the poor poorer and the rich absorbing more and more taxes for social programs.

Unless you want to cut social programs to a bare bones minimum and then, then you'd see action by the people.

It's simple the less you pay people, the less people can buy, the less they can pay in taxes, the more crime goes up. The Ultra rich don't give a damn because they have spent the last decade building themselves fortresses for houses and have houses in other countries..... The upper middle class and the poor schlob who has a little money will be the ones paying more for police protection and in taxes.

The disparity in this country has reached a high that is destroying this country and if you don't see it or you don't believe it, you really need to check your reality meter.

There is only one way to save this country, raise the wages of the working man, lower or tax heavily, the wages/perks/benefits of the ultra rich and hope it is not too late.

Pan, are you suggesting America needs more socialism to solve its economic problems? Is that the only way?

Right now yes. The greed of the ultra rich.... and I'm not talking about the poor schlub that has a couple rental properties and savings but the extreme wealthy who have controlled the media to sell these poor schlubs the belief that they will be taxed out of everything they own...... has destroyed this country.

What happened with Reagan was the unions became weak, management became powerful and unchecked.

The unions were greedy and had damaged this country and for the past years management has now taken that spot.

Back to your question.... lol..... yes, either we socialize wages and this country to a manageable degree or companies and CEO's do it on their own.... or we continue to collapse and in the end that will cost more than just taxes to everyone.

When you beat men down to the point where they feel they have nothing to lose .... and there are many getting that way in this country...... the only reaction is to fight back, because they have nothing to lose. They worked hard to prevent it, doping the population with Paxil, WellButrin, Prozac etc, then doping the kids with Adderall and Ritalin. The people saw all this happening but didn't care. Then, the pharms got greedy, the meds rose, wages and insurance didn't, people couldn't afford the "meds" and now they are waking up. They don't like what they see.

That is why the powers that be have given us 2 of the worst candidates in the history of this country.

We will pay more under Obama by a sliver, but that sliver is so slight that our average charitable donations will more than make up for it.

Plus, factor in the fact that McCain's plan only increases the defecit which damages people's faith in the economy.

Even when my income bracket changes in another couple of years, I would pay more under McCain and less under Obama.

You emphasized the word "reality", so for the record I offer the following for consideration.

A family of 4 (two adults and two children) making $40,000 (in the bottom 60%) would have a standard deduction of $10,700 (using 2007 tax laws), personal exemptions of $13,200 ($3,300 x 4). The taxable income would be $16,454. The tax would be $1,629. But then they would have the Child tax Credit of $2,000, reducing their tax to $0 and allowing a net payment from the government of $371. And then they qualify for the earned Income Tax credit, of $4,470. They pay no tax and actually get a check for $4,841.

O.k., but let's look a another scenario for a person in the bottom 40%.

A family of 4 (two adults and two children) making $66,354 (in the bottom 60%) would have a standard deduction of $10,700 (using 2007 tax laws), personal exemptions of $13,200 ($3,300 x 4). The taxable income would be $42,454. The tax would be $5,589. They would have the Child tax Credit of $2,000, reducing their tax to $3,589. Unfortunately they don't qualify for the Earned Income Tax credit. So they actually pay the $3,589. Obama's plan to save them over $1,000 is good for this family, but is actually a savings of 27%. The Post did not show how they calculated the savings they came up with. so we don't really have "reality" until they show us, and given the complexity of the tax code two families in the same "category could see dramatically different amounts under either plan.

But there is a bigger picture - marginal tax rates. Using the two cases above. The one family paid $3,589 in taxes the other paid nothing and got a check for $4,841 - the difference is $8,430. Wow! The difference in income was $26,354. So if the first family hit good times (new job, raise, spouse entering the work force, whatever) and earned what the second family earns, their marginal tax rate would be - ***32%***. That is pretty close to the highest marginal tax rate available, the one for the "rich".

So, the bottom line is that people who have the potential to earn more money over time should favor tax simplification and generally low marginal tax rates. Also note we were just looking at federal income taxes, not FICA, state and possibly local taxes. Imagine being near poverty, getting an opportunity to make more and having to give half of that additional income, ouch!:grumpy:

i voted obama because i can't get taxed more with mccain when he loses.

Its probably a wash for me but I am not overly troubled by how much taxes I currently pay.

I am more interested in seeing both candidates and the next Congress implement a serious pay-as-you-go approach to the federal budget, much like the late 1990s where the deficit was eliminated and a significant budget surplus created.

Can the Democrats do it if they control both branches? Or will it take a divided government? Who knows with any degree of certainty?

And in either case, is the country ready for that kind of sacrifice? I think not.

That's the fun thing about data. If you play around with it enough, you can make any argument you want.

Does your analysis offer any speculation as to whether the second family in your example would trade places with the other family to get a larger refund check?

Americans are frighteningly obsessed with taxes. If anything, I'd rather pay more taxes, if it means getting more shit done where it should be done, and taking care of more people who need it. Sign me up for the Scandinavian way, baby. :thumbsup:

No. But the point was to illustrate things are not as simple as they appear. Obama's plan adds complexity to an already complicated system. The Post may of had an agenda. If you exclude tax credits, deduction, and adjustments the results can vary from reality. And, clearly added complexity will be disproportionally harmful to average taxpayers with the potential to earn more over time.

Well, yes. Things are more complicated than they frequently appear. The Post's agenda might have had more to do with not boring and confusing their readers than anything else.

No one is going to turn down an extra $20k in pretax income because they don't want to pay more taxes (provided they net an increase in money). I haven't owed taxes for most of my adult life, but I'm still going into considerable debt to put myself in a position to earn a lot more money (and pay a lot more taxes). When a computer program does your taxes, simplicity of the tax code becomes less relevant.

And it could just as easily be complexity that ends up benefiting the less wealthy. The devil is in the details.

QFT.

Werd.

The Canadian way ain't bad either. :thumbsup: To vote for a leader based on changes to income taxes boggles my mind.

Until our government can demonstrate their ability to manage our money responsibly, it's absolutely moronic to hand them another single dime. Corruption and incompetence run rampant at all levels of government. Unless we hold the politicians to the same standards we are expected to live under, we deserve what we get.

Well, except for the fact that if you don't send them your dimes, they'll send you to PIMTA prison.

Balancing the budget is one thing that I really wish we could address, and neither of the current presidential candidates have really addressed it. I personally have more hope (uh-oh) that Obama will be fiscally responsible than McCain, but right now neither of their budget proposals will balance the budget.

IMHO, one of the things we *must* do to balance the budget is cut military spending. Say, in half. Of course, that will *never* *ever* fly in the current political environment, especially if it came from a democrat. Even Clinton's modest (peacetime!) military budget cuts were decried as 'destroying the military' and opening our country to imminent invasion (invasion by who, I wonder?).

Right now the US spends more on our military than the other countries in the world. All of them. Combined. Sure, we need a strong military, but do we really need the capability to wipe out the entire rest of the planet?

This is one of several reasons why China is poised to dethrone the U.S. as the world's most influential nation.

Oh, that and purchasing power parity. Despite America's budget, they don't have the hardware and troops to maintain proportionate integrity when considering budget dollars and assets. China has a lot of hardware despite the much lower budget. So does Russia. So does....

What about truth? Isn't that more important than simplicity?

Why does our tax code have to be so complicated? Shouldn't the average person be able to easily figure their tax obligation, with no surprises?

The point is not making the extra money, but the "smoke and mirrors" games our government makes with the tax code. In addition don't you find it disturbing that those advocating for the poor are actually making it more difficult for the poor to accumulate wealth. Are you happy that poor people face what amounts to a 50% marginal tax burden when they start to do better? Like I have written in other threads, the "rich" are going to be o.k., because they have options and armies of tax experts to work with. The entrenched poor don't have a problem, because they have no real opportunities to make more money. Again, the real burden is carried by the middle class and high income earners (in some cases, not really "rich"). So, Obama's plan is basically a plan intended to fool people into thinking his plan will do what it is not really going to do. McCain's plan is not much better, but at least there is no pretense with his goals.

The guy who spends time understanding taxes is going to have an advantage over the guy who does not. the more complicated the tax code the bigger the advantage. In the examples I gave if both families had the exact same cash flow, but the first family had 1099 income that could be offset by legitimate business expense lowering their taxable income to the amount in the example - perhaps they have a net advantage of $8,000. If they did that every year for 20 years, saved the money in an account earning 5%, they would have about $300,000 in the bank.

But, I am betting that person will be highly scorned by the left as being a greedy capitalist deserving of having that money taken to support the family that did not take the time to understand taxes. But, like I said - tax policy does not have to be so complicated - simplify it and put everyone on an equal playing ground.

Please disregard everything I wrote and believe what you currently think. Let's compare notes in 20 years.:thumbsup:

Is anyone else surprised by how many TFPers make more than $600K/yr? 26% of us, if you match the percentage who say they'll pay more under Obama to the chart in the OP.

(Of course, some of those might be single and make less than $600K/yr)

It's a limitation of the medium. There is a market for complex economic info; I hate to break it to you, but the post ain't it.

You might as well ask why the legal system has to be so complicated.

It is complicated because the world is a complicated place. Apparently the people who have glued the tax code together over the years found the virtues of a simple tax code less than compelling.

Who is making it more difficult for the poor to accumulate wealth? It's a hallmark of progressive tax systems that people pay more money when they make more money. I am fairly certain that I will pay less taxes under Obama's plan, regardless of whatever trickery you think his plan contains.

There is definitely a threshold over which you start paying more taxes. But, your net gain is still positive with respect to the taxes you owe. I don't know about you, but I've never heard anyone expressing the desire to go back to making $15,000 a year because their tax burden is too much when they make $40-50,000. You can pull this "won't somebody please think of the upwardly mobile members of the lower class" business if you want, but to me it seems a bit too contrived.

What do you mean "is going to have an advantage over"? Ceteris paribus aside, you have to be pretty far removed from any sort of general notion of how things work to presume that there is much of an advantage to be gained over your fellow man by having a better understanding of tax code than him. Even then, I think you mean to say that the guy who knows a good accountant is going to have an advantage over the guy who doesn't. Just like the guy who knows a good lawyer will have an advantage over the guy who doesn't.

This is fantasy. You must not be communicating effectively, because it sounds to me like you think that an important difference between rich people and poor people is that rich people have a better understanding of the tax code. I don't know if you've ever seen rich CEO's testify in front of congress, but those folks don't seem to know how to tie their shoes, much less fill out a tax form.

The people who deserve scorn are the people who are already obscenely wealthy who hide their money from the government because they can't bear to part even a fraction of it.

Right, because you're going to use your superb understanding of the U.S. tax code to develop of overwhelming advantage over me. Because we're in direct competition and whatever extra money you can glean from your superior knowledge of the U.S. tax code will come directly out of my pocket. Clearly, there are no other factors at play. At all.

Actually it is around $111,000 that the turning point is.

Sales taxes are not complicated. Property taxes are not complicated. In both cases you can easily plan and it is difficult to "game" those systems.

In addition to tax policy there are the ramifications of tax policy. So, when Obama talks about windfall profit taxes on oil companies or giving everyone $1,000 from oil company profits perhaps most people don't realize that the cost of those ideas will be reflected at the pump. So what is the point of getting $1,000 and then giving it back when you buy oil and gas? The point is to get Obama elected.

I get your point and it would have an impact on me if I did not constantly hear from liberals how they are fighting for the poor, fighting against poverty, fighting for real wage increases, fighting against disproportionate wealth distribution, etc, etc. A middle class or working poor person should not have to face what amounts to a 50% marginal tax rate. That is simply too much in my book.

If I were to delegate my finances to an accountant, I would hire the best available accountant not depending on luck. In order to hire the best accountant you have to know what to ask. In order to know what to ask you have to have knowledge. the man with knowledge will make better choices than the man who does not. That is an advantage. Sure people get lucky, but if you are a gambler (which is what you are if you are uninformed) and rely on luck you will not come out ahead if the odds are not in you favor.



"Rich" people hire CEO's to run their companies. Good CEO's are good at running companies.

I measure wealth based on assets, not income. An "easy" to read person on this subject is Robert Kiyosaki ("Rich Dad, Poor Dad"), in one example he uses he talks about owning real estate and doing cash out refinancing - loans are not considered taxable income. So, a "rich" person could put themselves in a situation to place a mortgage on a income producing property, use the cash and then have the mortgage reduce the taxable income on the property further reducing their tax burden. Oh - and they could hire a CEO to handle it thier operations, while they drink Mojito's on the beach.

"Rich" people don't have to hide their money. They don't have to violate the law, they just understand the law and work within it. Just like those who understand the value of an IRA, have an IRA. There is nothing illegal or wrong with understanding the law and using it to your advantage. Everyone should have an IRA. If there are problems within the law, the law should be fixed.



No, I don't have a superb understanding, I am putting effort into gaining a superb understanding. I realize what I write will have no impact on anyone, but in some cases it forces me to think some thing through and writing about it helps. I simply think hard work, and the quest for knowledge will make a difference over time. I could be wrong, after all is said and done I doubt I will ever have the money or "assets" of Paris Hilton. So, maybe its all about luck.

An understanding of the two candidates' tax policies doesnt have to be all that complicated.

If you believe in a supply side, trickle down tax and economic policy, you will support McCain's position.

If you believe the middle class, rather than the top wage earners, should be the primary beneficiaries of tax policy, you will support Obama's.

That is the question, I would like to see proof. The middle class benefits from lower marginal tax rates and tax simplification, i.e. perhaps eliminating the ATM. Tax gimmicks, special deductions, hard hard to qualify for tax credits benefit an isolated few and will disproportionately impact those with increased earnings potential.

Oh, snap! I misread the chart trying to be a smartass. :-)

/me hangs head in shame.

It's ok, actually the $600,000 is an important number because anyone making under that number will not have their taxes raised by either candidate... even though Mc'Cain's adds are claiming that Obama will raise taxes on anyone making over $40,000.

Isn't increasing the capital gains tax an increase?
Isn't increasing the cap (currently at $102,000) on payroll taxes a tax increase?
Isn't "Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy" a tax increase?

I went to his website: Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Fiscal to try and get details, but I could not find any. How does anyone know what the impact of his plan is? If anyone has the details, in his words, please help point me in the right direction.

Shouldnt we be asking the same question of McCain as well or do you know the impact of his plan?

Neither candidate provides details on the impact of their respective plan...but by most measures, McCain's plan to make permanent the 2001 and 2003 income-tax cuts that expire at the end of 2010....including the top 1% of wage earners..is significantly more expensive with no explanation of how he would pay for it.

IMO, most voters are not interested in the details of tax policy beyond how much income tax they would pay under either plan.

The National Journal provides a good brief and concise overview of both candidates positions on Bush tax cuts, new tax cuts, the budget, etc:

McCain Policy Positions

Obama Policy Positions

Their positions on other issues are summarized for the average voter as well-- health care, energy/environment, trade policy, etc.
-----Added 13/8/2008 at 07 : 02 : 39-----
For those tax policy wonks who want more detail, I would suggest the Tax Policy Center's Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans.

I confess that I dont intend to read the full report.

Here is a quote from page two of the report done by the Tax Policy Center:

We do know what current tax policy is (Bush Tax Cuts), we know McCain wants to make them permanent, that is a little more specific than Obama's plan. We also generally know that Obama's plans involve carving out specific groups for tax cuts, deductions or credits. McCain's plans are broader in nature. So, if you are lucky enough to be in one of Obama's targeted categories you may benefit (and I would not assume anyone can make the call if they are in one of his categories), otherwise you would benefit under McCain's plan. Basically, there is no "reality" at this point.

Also found in the report was this quote supporting some points I have been making about "rich" people having options the rest don't have regarding tax planning.

In addition the report comments on disincentives to work under some of Obama's tax proposals, again support a point I made about marginal tax rates.

And

Looking at these components of the analysis suggests that "rich" people may avoid increased taxation and that middle class and poor will be given disincentives to work. Thsi sounds like a recipe for economic disaster.

Is this the same McCain who voted against Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and characterized them as "irresponsible" at the time?

I wonder why he (or anyone)m thinks its more responsible now.....with our nearly $10 trillion national debt (nearly double what it was before these tax cuts)!

IMO, they are still irresponsible, particularly if the top bracket is not sunsetted and returned to pre-2000 rates as envisioned in both the 01 and 03 bills.. and far more costly, by any measure, than Obama's plan.

At least Obama's approach to the Bush tax cuts....continuing the cuts for 94% of taxpayers (mostly middle class) AND paying for it by letting the cuts on the top 1% expire in 2010...seems a bit more responsible.

Is the top rate going to make a difference? Taxes collected are going to be 17%-18% of GDP under Bush, McCain or Obama according to the report you cited. This has been the historical range, so how do you conclude Bush's tax cuts are irresponsible? Also according to the report you cited the deficit is going to go up under McCain's plan or under Obama's plan. They (in the report) made some assumptions regarding how Obama is planning on handling health care so under his plan the deficit may be lower or higher depending. Either way, the budget won't be in balance unless there are large cuts, McCain is at least talking about making cuts.

Again, when I see proof...otherwise Obama's populist rhetoric is a tactic to get elected.

Lowering one tax and raising another may not lead to a net tax reduction.

Instituting targeted tax deductions and credits, may only affect a select few.

Giving homeowners the option of of using the standard deduction and deducting home interest compared to them using the itemized deduction doesn't mean that there will be a tax reduction.

Raising corporate taxes in many cases will translate to higher costs to consumers (inflationary), and a further eroding of American competitiveness (loss of jobs).

Personally, I think these issues are worthy of discussion and debate and should not be considered off limits.

We got bills to pay, the only way to raise that money is to raise taxes AND decrease spending. I'm sorry but the republican party as a whole is bad at both, dems only better at paying bills.... My first choice on decreasing spending is get rid of Homeland Security, and while we're at it, most of the secret organizations, why do we need so many?

Both parties need to quit throwing around "free" money to stimulate the economy. That works about as well as trickle down economics.....

Once the bills are paid, then for Pete's sake cut taxes AND DON'T increase spending again. Utopia or bust!!!!!

I think a better way is to grow the economy. Taxes collected as a percent of GDP has been fairly consistent over time, so with a bigger GDP the government will collect more tax dollars. I agree with the "AND decrease spending", I think the federal government has to recognize that there are limits. Obama's promises for "free" government programs, targeted tax cuts, credits and deductions seem to be based on getting votes rather than a consideration for longterm economic strength.

Above, you are only talking about small percentages of the federal budget, if you want real cuts you have to look at entitlement programs. Defense spending may have some areas for cuts, but I would not get too carried away with cutting defense programs in our current environment.

I am curious. Do you think money in the hands of government is utilized better than money in the hands of citizens? The basis of "trickle down economics" is the simple premise that citizens would be more efficient at spending money to grow the economy than centralized government.

In the editorial section of IBD today. I would like to see a fact based defense from the Obama side from some of the facts pointed out in this editorial. I am betting it won't happen, I expect only generalities and accusations of bias and unfair treatment.

And, yes I already know what many of you think about IBD. But they reference fact based information that can be independently checked and verified by looking at the tax code and Obama's plan (the parts of his plan that can be nailed down). So, let's stop the pretense and agree that under Obama and a Democratic Congress taxes are going up for almost all of us including the middle class. And, I think we should expect federal government spending to increase at a rate higher than tax dollars collected, unfortunately the next President is not going to have the benefit of a dot com boom and excessive real estate price increases to bolster taxes collected the way that Bill Clinton experienced. So, perhaps it is time to get over the "times were so good under Clinton" talk because Clinton policies had almost nothing to do with the boom in technology in the 90's or the real estate boom.

Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news

http://www.investors.com/images/edit...sues082508.gif

That is odd the article says Obama will phase out the child and dependent care credit yet Obama's website says he will expand it:

Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Family
So which is it? Also if this article is factually correct why is it in an editorial?
-----Added 25/8/2008 at 03 : 08 : 30-----
Also looking at marginal tax rate is a bit misleading. The bottom line is do the families pay more or less overall? This article makes no mention of that.

I would like to see a facts based editorial on IBD...and not a partisan opinion piece that cherry picks information from its cited sources while omitting other relevant information....or manipulates data to support an absurd argument: Obama's plan rescinds tax breaks as some taxpayers' incomes rise, reducing their incentives to earn more(from the editorial).

Reducing their incentive to earn more? In my 25 year working career, I have never met a person, working at any job or salary level, who does not want to make a higher salary, even if it might, in some small number of cases, mean marginally higher taxes.

But I dont expect to see a facts based editorial in IBD any time soon!

Please read the the editorial and, if you are inclined, check the sources they cite. You can also run some examples yourself and see results like I did. Our tax code is more than just the tax rates. Sure Obama can say he is reducing tax "rates" for the middle class and raising tax "rates" on the rich, but until a person actually runs through some real examples, one won't know the real truth.

Attacking IBD is too easy, they even mention the reflexive argument of "cherry picking" in the article - the respondent suggests the same thing I suggest.

Except the article doesn't cite hardly anything. It sights one study vaguely and makes claims without citing the references for those claims. This article is an opinion piece and nothing more. There is not a single citation in that article for a person to fact check them.

The "devil is in the details". His website states that he will make the credit refundable - meaning that for people who owe no tax would still benefit from the credit - sort of like ending up in a negative tax bracket. At some point in the income range that credit will go away. The family going from poverty to a livable wage will face not only the loss of the credit but will also potentially owe taxes on the additional income. Hence the marginal tax rate goes up at the threshold or cutoff point.

People who get the credit win. People who are getting the credit today but start making more money in the future are in for a marginal tax hit that is going to be pretty hard for working families. So, under Obama people will have an incentive to stay poor.

Like I wrote earlier in this thread, adding in state, local, and FICA taxes, a poor person trying to get ahead should not have to face what could easily be a 50% marginal tax hit. In many cases the "rich" wont face marginal tax rates that high. Just ask Warren Buffet or people like him. I think they actually secretly laugh as they support Democrats and their ideas about hitting the "rich" with more taxes.
-----Added 25/8/2008 at 05 : 29 : 11-----
Here is a link to the Tax Policy Center (Brookings Institute):

Tax Facts | Tax Facts home

Here is a link to American enterprise Institute:

Welcome to AEI

I am betting some will say these organizations are biased, but like I suggest, they should give some information that counters the information they offer on tax policy.

And here is a link to the IRS Publication 17 for 2007:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...eply&p=2512884

{added}Here is a link to the Tax Policy Center's report on their analysis of both candidates tax proposals. The good and the bad on both candidate's proposals.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploa...es_summary.pdf

This makes no sense to me....


Assume we have a tax credit of $1000 and a tax rate of 10%. (the numbers are chosen to be small and simple on purpose and not representative of real numbers)


Family A) makes $900 and they get the tax credit for $100 for a total net income of $1000.

Fmaily B) makes $1100 they get no tax credit and pay taxes on $100 for a total tax liability of $10 for a total net income of $1090.

According to your argument a couple of things are true:

1) Family B would rather be Family A because they pay less taxes even though they have less income.

2) Family A would rather not make more than $1000 because it means less tax liability. Thus if Family A were offered a $200 raise they would say "thanks, but no thanks".

3) The world is flat.
-----Added 25/8/2008 at 05 : 52 : 10-----
look at the graph at the bottom of the link you posted:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploa...es_summary.pdf

it says that 4/5ths of Americans will have more after tax income with Obama than with McCain. Are you claiming these people would rather pay more taxes as long as their marginal rate was lower?
-----Added 25/8/2008 at 05 : 54 : 36-----
Let's take a quick straw poll. Everyone reading this please tell me if you which of these you would prefer:

A) To pay more total taxes or B) to have a higher marginal tax rate?

I'd pay more under McCain. SHOCKING

[QUOTE=filtherton;2504430]I didn't even look before I voted, because I knew I'd pay more under McCain. :no:

Ahem, he's a Republican and I'm middleclass. Pretty clear answer. Eh?

There are two different issues on the table.

1) People who will receive a net tax cut will be better off. However, Obama's plans for tax rate cuts are targeted. His plans for tax credits and special deductions are targeted. If you are in a situation to benefit from his targeted tax cuts you benefit. So, for example, if you are a senior citizen and you are actually paying taxes, and you make less than $50,000 you will win, assuming the increase in capital gains tax rates don't offset your savings (of course this depends on the details). And, Obama is going to be raising some taxes or tax rates for example the middle class family ( let's say a teacher and a fire fighter perhaps making a combined $100K+) they may not benefit from Obama's targeted tax cuts and may pay more in payroll taxes and capital gains taxes. This is the primary question, and we need details. right now all we can do is make assumptions.

2) Tax rates are supposed to be progressive. The higher the income the higher the marginal tax bracket. Obama's plan is to raise the top tax rate to about 37%. So for each additional dollar made after a certain point a "rich" person will pay $.37 in taxes. Fair or not the story is to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the "rich". However, what we find is that marginal tax rates on the poor may be as high as the marginal tax rate on the "rich". So, in some cases our tax system may not be progressive, but may end up being regressive. This is an unintended consequence of convoluted tax policy.

So we end up with a poor family with an opportunity to do better financially. What happens? They pay 34% to 39% of each additional dollar earned to the federal government in income taxes. The pay about 7.5% in in payroll tax. They may pay a state income tax, let's say 5%. Then let's say they no longer qualify for free school lunch ( 2 kids x $2/lunch x 30 weeks = $600). Let's say they no longer qualify for free day care ( 1 kid X $300/week X 50 weeks = $15,000). Let's say they drive to work ( 20 miles per work day @ 30 mpg @ $3.50 per gallon = $583). Let's say they are forced to belong to a union and have to pay dues ($10 per week x 52 weeks = $520), etc.
Assuming, and I do, that most people can do basic math, at what point does it make sense to choose work, given the marginal costs? Especially when the majority of the additional costs are additional taxes and the loss of tax credits and special deductions.

Obama and the democrats have tax policies designed to have a perpetual class of poor earning sub-livable wages. They pretend to be against poverty, but they are in the poverty making business. I think the ones who understand - lie. I think those who have not thought it through - just don't know the implications of what they support.

nice, ace!

How very condescending of you to suggest or imply that "the democrats" - half the country (or more) - are either liars or ignorant because they dont agree with your analysis of tax policy.
-----Added 26/8/2008 at 12 : 42 : 44-----
If I could suggest, you might try learning how to just agree to disagree without insulting the character, integrity and intelligence of those who hold opposing views.

Please ace show me by the numbers where a poor person will pay more under Obama's plan than McCains. Then also show me a case where the middle class will (say 100K joint income). I fail to see how Obama giving more money back to the poorer Americans is going to cause them to pay more....

There is a great saying. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. The article you are doing is playing with statistics to mislead people. That is why it is important to chose a metric that everyone understands when dealing with numbers. In this case, it is my opinion, that the best metric is after tax income because it is easy to understand and compare.

Or, perhaps someone can show me how I am wrong. I give example after example illustrating the basis of my view. The rhetoric from Democrats on the class warfare issue is dishonest or uninformed.

Let me ask you a question (to go unanswered) if the Democratic Party logic holds that raising the minimum wage is a good thing to fight poverty and minimize the numbers of people earning non-livable wages and if $7.25 is good, why not $8.25, why not $9.25, why not $20.25?

I will answer the question, assuming their logic. The goal is to do just enough to get votes. But the reality is and many know this, raising the minimum wage is an illusion. Raising the minimum wage is inflationary and has a negative impact on employment, in particular employment of unskilled labor.

I call them like I see them, if the truth is offensive - so be it. If what I write is not true, I am open to being challenged in my view.
-----Added 26/8/2008 at 02 : 10 : 14-----
I can't do everything for you. I can't connect all of the dots because I don't know what you know. But, I will say this. Generally, the people who are "poor" today will not be the same people who are "poor" tomorrow. Certainly there are a group of people who will be born in poverty and stay in poverty their entire life, but this is not the norm in this country. People making low income today, will have higher incomes in the future. If they face high marginal tax rates, that is punitive. That means that the "rich" (those who made it) stay in the top percentiles and those that have not made it (being in a position to save, invest, accumulate assets) will never make it. If that's the country you want, continue to support Democratic economic policy.

McCain's tax policy is only marginally better than Obama's. I would scrap our current tax code and start over. I would not tax a person's labor, savings and investments - I would tax consumption.

If you think taxes are going down under Obama, perhaps you can show me. There are already examples on the table suggesting that a simple cut in the commonly know tax brackets does not paint a full picture.

When Bush proposed tax cuts, everyone with a calculator could figure out what the impact would be. We have scholarly people desperately trying to figure out what the impact of Obama's tax plan is going to be and they can not do it without making assumptions on details they can not get from Obama. Do you know what your tax obligation is going to be under Obama's plan? Whose plan makes it easier, Obama's or McCain's?

ace....this is the kind of generalization you make with no basis of fact.

You present no compelling evidence that the minimum wage is inflationary or has a negative impact on employment, particularly on unskilled labor.

Quite the contrary, according to many economists:

My post from a recent thread on minimum wage:

For years after minimum wages were first legislated at both the state and federal level, economists were divided on the impact.

In the last 10-15 years, more and more studies suggest that that the impact is positive.

There is little question that the overall impact of a minimum wage is positive, as the following facts make clear:

If the minimum wage were increased nationally to $7.25:

* 14.9 million workers would receive a raise,

- 80% of those affected are adults age 20 or over, and
- 7.3 million children would see their parents income rise.

* Families with affected workers rely on those workers for over half of their earnings.

* 46% of all families with affected workers rely solely on the earnings from those workers.

* The best recent research on the economic impact of the minimum wage shows positive effects without job loss.

* Even the research that suggests a negative labor market effect shows only a minimal impact that is more than offset by the higher wage levels.

* The states that have adopted higher-than-federal minimum wages have seen low-wage workers’ incomes rise with no negative side-effects.

* Over 650 economists, including five Nobel Prize winners and six past presidents of the American Economics Association, recently signed a statement stating that federal and state minimum wage increases “can significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics have claimed”
...

The belief that raising the minimum wage causes job loss was more commonly accepted by economists decades ago, but high-quality research by leading academic economists has forced the economic community to re-evaluate these arguments. This consensus view rapidly eroded following evidence from the 1990s. Even Benjamin Bernanke, President Bush’s appointee as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has noted that “economists disagree about …whether increases in the minimum wage reduce employment of low-wage workers”(Bernanke 2006). In lieu of negative employment effects, economists are frequently citing higher productivity, decreased turnover, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale as ways in which employers may be able to offset some of the costs of a wage increase .

Some distinguished economists have acknowledged their change of opinion on the issue. Former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman and current Princeton economist Alan Blinder commented, “My thinking on this has changed dramatically. The evidence appears to be against the simple-minded theory that a modest increase in the minimum wage causes substantial job loss”
...

Following the 1997 federal minimum wage increase, Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University observed, “We saw no ripple effect at all in the unemployment rate. Unemployment just continued to go down.” The minimum wage increase, he said, “was totally swamped by other factors going on in the economy” (Chipman 2006). Accordingly, the 1999 Economic Report of the President stated: “Many studies have examined this issue, and the weight of the evidence suggests that modest increases in the minimum wage have had very little or no effect on employment.”

...

In response to dire predictions made by minimum wage opponents prior to the enactment of Florida’s minimum wage, Bruce Nissen of Florida International University and Luke Shaefer of the University of Chicago followed up with a comprehensive study of Florida’s economy one year after the minimum wage increase. Their conclusion:

No empirical evidence shows that Florida’s minimum wage has caused businesses to lay off workers. Instead, state employment has shown strong growth since the new wage took effect, better than in previous years and better than the U.S. as a whole.

Similarly, an examination of the Wisconsin labor market one year following the implementation of an increase by the Center on Wisconsin Strategy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that the most-affected industry, eating and drinking establishments, grew three times more rapidly than the overall Wisconsin job growth rate.

Washington has the highest minimum wage in the country and was the first state to annually adjust its state minimum wage for cost-of-living increases. The Washington-based Economic Opportunity Institute has found that Washington has out-performed the rest of the country in jobs since the end of the recession in November 2001, and that industries most-heavily affected by the minimum wage have not seen adverse employment impacts.

Studies by the Oregon Center for Public Policy have found that Oregon has had faster job growth than 41 other states since its minimum wage and indexing went into effect in 2002. Furthermore, low-wage employers have been adding jobs at a faster rate than Oregon employers overall since the higher minimum wage and annual cost-of-living adjustments were implemented

A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses or in the retail industry. Examining government data, FPI found that none of the many states that have raised their minimum wages above the federal level have seen labor market or other economic problems arising from their higher rates.

Minimum wage trends: Understanding past and contemporary research

/end threadjack...feel free to go back to your tax policy arguments if Rekna or anyone is interested in discussing it with you further.

Smoke and mirrors. Why not address the fundamental question.

If increases in the minimum wage are good, why not do more?

Like most economic issues there is a point of diminishing returns. If the prevailing entry level wage in an area is $10/hr. and the minimum wage is $5.25, the minimum wage has no impact. If it is raised to $7.25 it still has no impact. Raise it to $12/hour it has an impact and the impact is inflationary. If the value of the job is $10/hour an employer won't hire a person at $12/hour. If a person enters the work force and gains marketable skills they will get the prevailing wage commiserate with their skill. Legislation has no magical impact on real wages. I would love to talk to the economist who argues otherwise.

In order to make sense of economic data and statistics we have to look at the methodology used and understand the assumptions employed. We have to give the questions some thought.

The minimum wage issue is an method to get votes. People sincere about livable wages understand that livable wages come from people having marketable skills in the labor market. As a nation if we invest in education and training the minimum wage is a non-issue. Every so often Democrats trot out the minimum wage issue, get an increase and use it as a major accomplishment. However, unemployment in some of our urban areas for young adults is locked down in double digits, have been and it will continue. Now, you want me to believe that those who use this issue decade after decade actually want to make a difference?

{added} Here is one of my favorite economists, Milton Friedman on the minimum wage - he is more diplomatic than I am.
Link to Youtube video.

Ever consider that maybe the effect of minimum wage is non-linear? Like most optimization problems there is a sweet spot for the minimum wage where it balances the needs of the people with the needs of the businesses. The argument is where is that sweet spot. Obviously the dems feel it is higher than we currently are and the republicans feel it is lower than we currently are.

Where the minimum wage should be is a very complex problem that no one understands completely because there are too many variables to measure and predict. The minimum wage may hurt one aspect of the economy while helping another. In this case the question comes down to is the tradeoff worth it. When you say why not just raise it to $20 an hour you are over simplifying the problem and incorrectly representing the democratic position on minimum wage.

I think minimum wage legislation is a lose/lose proposition. If the minimum wage is set below market wages, no one will benefit because people are making more than the minimum. If the minimum wage is set above market wages, something in the market has to change - either prices go up or the demand for labor goes down. If there is another possibility, I am open to looking into it. In some of the data DC posted we have to look at the tail. I agree that if we raise the minimum wage today, that today some workers benefit and it will take some time for the market to respond to the newly mandated wage. But the market will respond.

This is one reason why we should spend at least a small amount of time and go outside the beltway and talk to business owners.

Let's say you own a fast food service restaurant grossing $1 million per year. Let's say your employee costs (most at minimum wage) is $600,000, and after the other costs your net profit is $50,000 (5% net profit margin). Then they raise the minimum wage 10% and that increases your employee cost to $660,000 an increase of $60,000.

What are you going to do?

Your $50,000 net profit is now a $10,000 net loss, do you go out of business and fire your employees?

Do you try to raise prices?

Do you ask fewer employees to do more work to keep your costs at $600,000?

Do you automate activities so you need fewer employees?

Do you cut back services to you customer risking the loss of sales?

No matter how you answer these questions there are going to be two results - inflation or job loss.

I've never understood the conservative minimum wage/market philosophy.

Privatize everything, let the market determine the best provider of X.

Don't raise the minimum wage, the provider will just fire workers to maintain profitability.

So we should trust the market to provide, but be wary that if they have to pay the janitor another 75 cents, they will fire him instead of reducing the CEO's salary from $20,000,000 to $19,999,925. That's business ethics for you.

You won't find many people making minimum wage in companies where the CEO is making $20 million or wages in that range. In large corporations where a person starts at minimum wage it is unusual that they would stay at minimum wage for very long. Where you find minimum wage employees are in small businesses. So, why not answer the questions I presented, what would you do?

Also, why do you assume that people are not smart enough to realize that if they have marketable job skills and experience that they can change employers if their current employer is not paying them a fair market wage? Gee, when I insult people I know when I am doing it. But, I guess it is the assumption that people are too dumb to get a fair wage that causes some to think that big government has to come to the rescue.

What are your questions based on, an actual operation?

The reason we have the minimum wage law, as well as several other employment laws and labor day, is because we found out what big business would do if left unchecked. They would prefer to make people work 16 hours a day and employ 8 year olds.

Jim Skinner makes $13.4M, and received a $4M bonus for valiantly sitting in a chair for six months.

According to the Tax Policy Center, McCain's tax plan could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion (plus interest) and Obama's by as much as $3.3 trillion (plus interest).

The debt increase of nearly $5 trillion over the last 7 years is due in large part to Bush's tax cuts. Do we really want to increase the national debt by another $3-4 trillion over the next 10 years?

Comparing the two plans, their is no doubt in my mind that the middle class and working poor would benefit more under Obamal's plan, (and that doesnt make me ignorant or a liar as has been suggested earlier in this discussion) and I also know which plan costs more.

But at some point the America people need to be told that a little more personal sacrifice may be required. That would particularly apply to the wealthiest.

So, IMO, the best scenario, assuming serious reform and overhaul of the tax code is unlikely, would be to return to the pre-2000 rates.

Yes sir, sorry sir. (whacks back of hand with ruler)

I will pay more taxes under Obama, like $43 more. If there's even a chance that McCain will pursue the same economic policies that ten trillion dollar Bush has, I consider it money well spent.

The numbers are based on the assumption that the Bush tax cuts expire which McCain would then make permanent and Obama wouldn't (only selected portions of the Bush tax cuts). However, McCain talks about dramatic spending cuts, I have heard him say up to 20% in the discretionary budget, this is not reflected in the debt numbers stated. The Center believes Obama's health plan would have the federal government insure or subsidize about 17 million more people by 2009 and 29 million by 2018 as compared to McCain's plan. No one knows what these numbers would do to the debt.

The Executive Summary of the Tax Policy Center report makes most of the above pretty clear, along with the fact that the lack of specifics from the campaigns made making their estimates difficult. Details, details...:rolleyes:

Does anyone really believe that a Democrat controlled Congress and White House will actually show spending restraint? The Republicans could not do it. Our best hope is gridlock, perhaps a Republican Congress, and a Democratic President.

Well it wasn't long ago that we had a balanced budget and it was done under a democrat....

...with a Republican Congress. Oh, and an unrealistic stock market boom during the 90's, and wild real estate speculation. Details, details...

Budget proposals start at the White House.

Clinton's last three budget proposals were balanced budgets (with surpluses) and negotiated with a Republican Congress.

His first five budget proposals paid down the Reagan/Bush debt with lower annual deficits each year and those were negotiated with a Democratic Congress.

I dont recall either Reagan or GHW Bush ever proposing a balanced budget. Certainly, GW Bush never did.

The national debt increased significantly under Reagan/Bush, decreased under Clinton, and zoomed to record levels under GW Bush.

The myth is that the Republicans are the fiscally responsible party.

quoted for truth

McCain's rhetoric about significant savings through cutting earmarks is just that...empty rhetoric. Earmarks represent about 1% of the federal budget.

His claim to cut 20% in discretionary spending is dubious since more than half of discretionary spending is DoD and "terrorism response" (DHS, State and related). The next biggest discretionary spending is VA and HHS...the rest is insignificant.

He either significantly cuts war funding, anti-terrorism funding, vets funding (which is expected to increase for years to come in order to care for Iraq vets) or funding for health/welfare programs....to reach that 20% mark.

So who do you think might bear the burden if he were to follow through with his promise? My guess would be the working poor and middle class who benefit most from HHS spending. Not gonna happen.

Maybe he could start with restoring the $billions lost in lease payments by big oil companies that Bush/Republican Congress waived in the 05 energy bill

IMO, the best approach is get out of Iraq ($10 billion/month) by 2010 along with reasonable (low impact) spending cuts (or freezes) across the board AND restoring the pre-2000 tax rates (particularly on top bracket) to generate significantly increased revenue.
-----Added 27/8/2008 at 03 : 55 : 32-----
added:

Charles Barkley for Secretary of Treasury?

YouTube - Barkley says he'll be happy to pay more in taxes

YouTube - Barkley says he'll be happy to pay more in taxes

BLITZER: If Obama has his way, you would spend another $701,885 in taxes. $700,000 above and beyond – you pay a lot of taxes right now if you’re making millions of dollars a year as you are. How do you feel about that?

BARKLEY: Well, I think that if you’re rich — I thank God I’ve been very successful — if you’re rich, you’re always going to be rich. If we pay more in taxes, I got no problem with that. If you’re making that kind of money, a couple hundred thousand dollars here or there are not going to change your life.

Let’s be realistic. I’ve been very fortunate and blessed. I did a great job of saving my money. But I got no problem if I’m making that type of money, paying more in taxes to be honest with you.

Despite Blitzer putting up on the screen only a portion of the comparison of the Obama/McCain plans...not showing the savings for the lower brackets...cheap shot!

Hey, I don't think anyone posted this yet. But it's a really damn easy (admittedly quick and dirty) method for figuring out the difference you will receive in tax cuts between McCain's plan and Obama's plan.

Check it out.

The hand off to Clinton from Republican administrations was pretty sweet. Reagan absorbed the pain of correcting the debacle of stagflation caused by an ineffective Jimmy Carter. The economy was put on the right track.

If you recall when Reagan took office there was no economic growth, interest rates were in double digits, Iran was out of control, and we were in the Cold War with Russia. The man had some work to do, he did it and set the table for economic growth and stability.

While Clinton was in office, after the fact, we find that we had "irrational exuberance" in the stock market with uncontrolled speculation which artificially bolstered tax revenues. And this gave false readings of economic growth. We had the roots of major corporate scandals, like Enron and World Com. We also had irrational speculation in real estate take root under the Clinton administration. This lead to people using home equity like credit card accounts, it also gave false readings of economic growth and helped bolster tax revenues. And we had the ME extremist planning attacks on our nation.

So, Bush takes office and the economy goes into recession, the stock market bubble had burst, we have 9/11, we go to war, we have the real estate market correct, we have major financial institutions fail and write off billions in losses.

But, after all of that Bush got us out of the recession, we improved national security, we withstood the stock market decline, we are holding our own with the real estate and financial market crisis, and (this is big) the economy is still growing. Imagine that.

Oh, and he cut taxes but tax revenues are up.

Oh, and he cut taxes on the "rich" but the "rich" now pay a bigger percentage of taxes than they did before.

So again we have a Republican President who had some work to do, did what needed to be done so that the next President will have an easier road. Obama should thank Bush.

Republican's have not been fiscally responsible, but Democrats have not been either. To think a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress are going to employ longterm policy to insure economic growth and reduce spending is laughable, in my opinion. I predict taxes will go up, economic growth will slow, middle class Americans will pick up a bigger burden of taxes paid, government entitlement will expand with fewer working American citizens to support these programs, inflation will increase (inflation is a central government's magic wand getting rid of or reducing debt - pay the debt with deflated currency), employment growth will slow, crime will increase, education standards will get worse, more major corporations doing business in the US will be based in other nations, and global warming will continue. :eek:

Sorry to say it but we are still in a recession. Also when saying how much taxes the rich pay percentages mean squat. How much overall did they pay then vs now (adjusted for inflation).

Do you actually think Barkley or anyone else making the kind of money he makes is just going to accept a $700,000+ tax bill without putting any effort into reducing that bill? I know you don't like responding to my questions, but I normally think I know how you and most people would actually respond. But, now I am getting concerned because the same issue keeps coming up. Warren Buffet the richest man on the planet does tax planning and does not pay more in taxes than he needs to, do you really, really think a "rich" guy will get a call from his accountant where the accountant says your taxes went up $700,000 this year, and the "rich" guy won't say what did you do to reduce it to $700,000? And then if the accountant says - I did not do anything. How long would it take for the accountant to be fired?

P.S. Don't take financial or gambling advise from Charles Barkley.

The Wynn sues Barkley, claims $400,000 gambling debts unpaid - Las Vegas Sun

can you please link somethings that show recession? I'm not able to find any such thing.

I remember someone saying something like "Don't let facts get in the way of a good sob story", I don't remember who but it applies here. In spite of what Democrats say, the economy has not gone into recession.

Free Preview - WSJ.com

I understand that there are policy differences among TFP members and I have no problem discussion our differences
.
But blammg Carter and Clinton for everything gone wrong in the last 30 years! Gimme a fucking break!

The defense of the Repubilcans as the fiscally responsible party in recent years is not only so factually innacurate but utterly laughable.

I'm done now.

There is no recession. There is merely the possibility.

reportonbusiness.com: U.S. GDP may allay recession fears

Well my comment about the recession was due to him saying that Bush got us out of a recession. So I took his assumption that we were in a recession and the fact that the economy has not gotten better. If you want to argue that we were/are not in a recession thats fine. I'll accept that we aren't in a recession as long as we admit the economy is not well off and has not gotten better.

I was pretty specific and certainly did not blame "everything gone wrong" on Carter and Clinton.

Is this an example of one of those mischaracterizations or comments taken out of context that you get so upset about?

Is it o.k. for "everything gone wrong" to be blamed on Bush?

We have heard that before. I will cut to the chase - I apologize if I hurt your feelings. I apologize for being so extreme that my comments are not worthy of being responded to. I apologize for being an ass. I apologize for "cherry picking"? I apologize for not agreeing with you? I apologize for not giving facts. I apologize for reading non-credible publications like the WSJ and IBD. I apologize for apologizing.
-----Added 28/8/2008 at 12 : 40 : 56-----
It is interesting how at a level where a family would owe no tax, they get a "tax cut" under Obama. And that although a family would get one of those "tax cuts" under McCain's plan (just not as much) they actually say McCain would tax you $xxxx dollars MORE than Obama. Then if the McCain tax plan gives a bigger cut than the Obama tax plan they don't even show the results of the McCain tax plan.

I think the intent is to be a bit misleading, and of course there is the solicitation for donations to Obama. In a situation where a family owes no tax, but gets a "tax cut" it would be more honest if both candidates clearly stated that their plans include re-distribution of wealth.