http://gamingtrend.com
August 20, 2014, 05:30:04 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Economic Plans  (Read 6018 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« on: June 10, 2008, 11:25:44 AM »

Let's gather some news clips on the different candidates economic proposals.

Here's the first:

Story

Raising taxes on the rich.     Imposing taxes on oil companies.     
Logged
Jeff
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3278



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2008, 12:20:31 PM »

Fox News ...  icon_lol

That's the network that frequently calls Obama .. "Osama, oops I mean Obama", and had the anchor that made a joke calling for his assassination right?

hey, Fox News  finger
Logged
naednek
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4619



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2008, 12:25:55 PM »

so much for staying on topic and discussing the topic on hand.
Logged
Jeff
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3278



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2008, 12:31:22 PM »

Quote from: naednek on June 10, 2008, 12:25:55 PM

so much for staying on topic and discussing the topic on hand.

Cite legitimate (non-propaganda) sources and we can do that.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2008, 12:42:34 PM »

Quote from: Jeff Jones on June 10, 2008, 12:31:22 PM

Quote from: naednek on June 10, 2008, 12:25:55 PM

so much for staying on topic and discussing the topic on hand.

Cite legitimate (non-propaganda) sources and we can do that.


Yeah Fox News is generally not the best source for unbiased reporting.  Although I don't think there is anything in that particular article that the Obama campaign would argue with. I'm a little bit concerned about Obama's  "tax the rich to pay for tax cuts to the middle class" proposals.  I think raising taxes on any segment of the population during a recession is a bad move.  Especially since the high wage earners that would get the increase are going to be the ones that have the means to avoid paying the taxes anyway, through high powered tax attorneys and accountants.  The focus must be on cutting government spending while maintaining the Bush tax cuts.  Unfortunately people do not get elected by telling people they are going to eliminate government programs.   Increased taxes on the wealthy without concurrent cuts in federal spending are meaningless.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2008, 12:59:37 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on June 10, 2008, 12:42:34 PM

Quote from: Jeff Jones on June 10, 2008, 12:31:22 PM

Quote from: naednek on June 10, 2008, 12:25:55 PM

so much for staying on topic and discussing the topic on hand.

Cite legitimate (non-propaganda) sources and we can do that.


Especially since the high wage earners that would get the increase are going to be the ones that have the means to avoid paying the taxes anyway, through high powered tax attorneys and accountants. 

It really doesn't work that way for the most part.

Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2008, 01:13:20 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on June 10, 2008, 12:59:37 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on June 10, 2008, 12:42:34 PM

Quote from: Jeff Jones on June 10, 2008, 12:31:22 PM

Quote from: naednek on June 10, 2008, 12:25:55 PM

so much for staying on topic and discussing the topic on hand.

Cite legitimate (non-propaganda) sources and we can do that.


Especially since the high wage earners that would get the increase are going to be the ones that have the means to avoid paying the taxes anyway, through high powered tax attorneys and accountants. 

It really doesn't work that way for the most part.



 icon_lol
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2008, 01:28:22 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on June 10, 2008, 01:13:20 PM

Quote from: Geezer on June 10, 2008, 12:59:37 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on June 10, 2008, 12:42:34 PM

Quote from: Jeff Jones on June 10, 2008, 12:31:22 PM

Quote from: naednek on June 10, 2008, 12:25:55 PM

so much for staying on topic and discussing the topic on hand.

Cite legitimate (non-propaganda) sources and we can do that.


Especially since the high wage earners that would get the increase are going to be the ones that have the means to avoid paying the taxes anyway, through high powered tax attorneys and accountants. 

It really doesn't work that way for the most part.



 icon_lol

No, I'm quite serious.  The idea that all these rich guys are running around not paying taxes is goofy.  *If* they are not paying taxes, they're by and large doing it the same way anyone else would -- by getting the same deductions you can.  I'm not sure why everyone thinks there is some special "rich guy" loophole that only super-high-priced CPA's and attorneys know about.  It just ain't true.

Look at it another way -- why do the rich pay such a huge portion of the total taxes collected when it's so easy to hire lawyers and accountants to help them figure out how to pay next to nothing?



« Last Edit: June 10, 2008, 01:30:20 PM by Geezer » Logged
YellowKing
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3047



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2008, 01:32:34 PM »

It's a myth the Democratic Party has perpetuated with great success for years. They are masters at dividing people into classes and then pitting them against each other.
Logged
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2008, 01:38:55 PM »

Quote from: YellowKing on June 10, 2008, 01:32:34 PM

It's a myth the Democratic Party has perpetuated with great success for years. They are masters at dividing people into classes and then pitting them against each other.

I'm not sure I see a difference between playing "demonize the rich" and playing "demonize the secular."  Nor am I sure I see a difference between promoting racial politics vs promoting the politics of sexual identity. 
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2008, 01:45:31 PM »

In the style of msduncan:

link

Largest deficit in 25 years - 5.7 trillion dollars.  Largest debt since WWII.

link

Tax cuts for the rich.

link
link
link
link

Massive cuts in social security, non-discretionary spending (NASA!), and medicare.  Does not address cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Proposals come "nowhere near generating the sums necessary to meet the costs."

link

1.2 billion dollar tax break for Exxon.

edited:  now with more links!
« Last Edit: June 10, 2008, 02:25:56 PM by Brendan » Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2008, 01:59:55 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on June 10, 2008, 01:28:22 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on June 10, 2008, 01:13:20 PM

Quote from: Geezer on June 10, 2008, 12:59:37 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on June 10, 2008, 12:42:34 PM

Quote from: Jeff Jones on June 10, 2008, 12:31:22 PM

Quote from: naednek on June 10, 2008, 12:25:55 PM

so much for staying on topic and discussing the topic on hand.

Cite legitimate (non-propaganda) sources and we can do that.


Especially since the high wage earners that would get the increase are going to be the ones that have the means to avoid paying the taxes anyway, through high powered tax attorneys and accountants. 

It really doesn't work that way for the most part.



 icon_lol

No, I'm quite serious.  The idea that all these rich guys are running around not paying taxes is goofy.  *If* they are not paying taxes, they're by and large doing it the same way anyone else would -- by getting the same deductions you can.  I'm not sure why everyone thinks there is some special "rich guy" loophole that only super-high-priced CPA's and attorneys know about.  It just ain't true.

Look at it another way -- why do the rich pay such a huge portion of the total taxes collected when it's so easy to hire lawyers and accountants to help them figure out how to pay next to nothing?

I guess we'll just have to disagree.  But I would argue that there are many more high tax bracket individuals not paying what they should than middle income individuals.  It's easy to win votes by saying you are going to tax the rich but much harder to actually get it done in a meaningful way.

Yes many of the deductions are available to everybody.  But not everybody has the means or takes the time to find them.  Rich people are rich for a reason.  And they don't like to give large percentages of their income to the government without exhausting all options.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2008, 02:02:32 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on June 10, 2008, 01:38:55 PM

Quote from: YellowKing on June 10, 2008, 01:32:34 PM

It's a myth the Democratic Party has perpetuated with great success for years. They are masters at dividing people into classes and then pitting them against each other.

I'm not sure I see a difference between playing "demonize the rich" and playing "demonize the secular."  Nor am I sure I see a difference between promoting racial politics vs promoting the politics of sexual identity. 


There is no difference.  Both parties drive wedges between groups in order to get elected.  No surprise there.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2008, 02:08:57 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on June 10, 2008, 02:02:32 PM

Quote from: Geezer on June 10, 2008, 01:38:55 PM

Quote from: YellowKing on June 10, 2008, 01:32:34 PM

It's a myth the Democratic Party has perpetuated with great success for years. They are masters at dividing people into classes and then pitting them against each other.

I'm not sure I see a difference between playing "demonize the rich" and playing "demonize the secular."  Nor am I sure I see a difference between promoting racial politics vs promoting the politics of sexual identity. 


There is no difference.  Both parties drive wedges between groups in order to get elected.  No surprise there.

Only one party codifies this shit in their electoral strategies.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2008, 02:16:22 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on June 10, 2008, 02:08:57 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on June 10, 2008, 02:02:32 PM

Quote from: Geezer on June 10, 2008, 01:38:55 PM

Quote from: YellowKing on June 10, 2008, 01:32:34 PM

It's a myth the Democratic Party has perpetuated with great success for years. They are masters at dividing people into classes and then pitting them against each other.

I'm not sure I see a difference between playing "demonize the rich" and playing "demonize the secular."  Nor am I sure I see a difference between promoting racial politics vs promoting the politics of sexual identity. 


There is no difference.  Both parties drive wedges between groups in order to get elected.  No surprise there.

Only one party codifies this shit in their electoral strategies.

At least they are up-front about it.   icon_biggrin
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: June 10, 2008, 03:16:38 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on June 10, 2008, 01:59:55 PM

Quote from: Geezer on June 10, 2008, 01:28:22 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on June 10, 2008, 01:13:20 PM

Quote from: Geezer on June 10, 2008, 12:59:37 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on June 10, 2008, 12:42:34 PM

Quote from: Jeff Jones on June 10, 2008, 12:31:22 PM

Quote from: naednek on June 10, 2008, 12:25:55 PM

so much for staying on topic and discussing the topic on hand.

Cite legitimate (non-propaganda) sources and we can do that.


Especially since the high wage earners that would get the increase are going to be the ones that have the means to avoid paying the taxes anyway, through high powered tax attorneys and accountants. 

It really doesn't work that way for the most part.



 icon_lol

No, I'm quite serious.  The idea that all these rich guys are running around not paying taxes is goofy.  *If* they are not paying taxes, they're by and large doing it the same way anyone else would -- by getting the same deductions you can.  I'm not sure why everyone thinks there is some special "rich guy" loophole that only super-high-priced CPA's and attorneys know about.  It just ain't true.

Look at it another way -- why do the rich pay such a huge portion of the total taxes collected when it's so easy to hire lawyers and accountants to help them figure out how to pay next to nothing?

I guess we'll just have to disagree.  But I would argue that there are many more high tax bracket individuals not paying what they should than middle income individuals.  It's easy to win votes by saying you are going to tax the rich but much harder to actually get it done in a meaningful way.

Yes many of the deductions are available to everybody.  But not everybody has the means or takes the time to find them.  Rich people are rich for a reason.  And they don't like to give large percentages of their income to the government without exhausting all options.



Hiring an accountant isn't hard. Or expensive.  Mine charges me less than $800 annually.  The only real way that "the rich" can avoid paying taxes is either by giving a whole bunch of money away (in which case they most assuredly not living the crazy life on that income) or by paying a lower tax rate due to investment income, which entails it's own set of risks that the "non rich" likely wouldn't choose to embrace (but again, they CAN if they choose to).

I quick search turned up this article that is arguing your position.  Here's a quick quote:

Quote
The IRS has reported that the number of those earning $200,000 or more who paid no taxes rose sharply in 2005. More than 7,300 of these worthies avoided U.S. income tax entirely, two-and-a-half times the year before. About 85,000 paid worldwide taxes of less than 10% of their income.

The study, by the IRS’ Brian Balkovic, cites two big reasons for this plunge in tax liability. One was a 2004 law that let individuals use foreign tax credits to reduce their Alternative Minimum Tax. The other, passed in response to Hurricane Katrina, opened a temporary window for people to make big cash charitable contributions without facing the normal limits on how much they can deduct. The 2005 tax return data are the most recent available.

I don't really have a problem with waiving regular charitable contribution caps, particularly in light of the fact that this was in response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster, and in general, the whole idea of exempting charitable contributions hardly seems like a "tax dodge" - you still don't get to KEEP the money after all, and donations are certainly not restricted to the wealthy.

But that (and established things like tax-free municipal bonds and other things that are, again, available to everyone) is about it.  There's no "magic bullet" to avoid paying taces, and even if you DO get your liability down, you're almost always doing it with some drawbacks (like not having the money anymore, or throwing it into an investment that caries risk).

Anyway.. here's how, outside of relatively special circumstances, it breaks down:

Quote
...the study also shows many high-income folks paid hefty taxes. While 2.4 percent of the $200,000-plus crowd paid little or nothing, one-third paid effective rates of 20 percent to 25 percent and nearly one-quarter paid 25 percent or more.

As per the IRS's own figures, some 97.6% of people with incomes of over 200K annually (who can well afford a good CPA) pay a substantial marginal rate, so what's the issue?

Logged
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: June 10, 2008, 03:20:30 PM »

To get back on topic...

I think pro-Obama folks should only be allowed to post McCain-favorable links, and vice versa.  That might help avoid the posting of things that don't have any pretense of being objective. 
Logged
Captain Caveman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1339


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: June 10, 2008, 03:32:37 PM »

I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure McCain just lost the blue-collar vote with this proposal.
Logged
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5099



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: June 10, 2008, 03:41:28 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on June 10, 2008, 12:42:34 PM

Especially since the high wage earners that would get the increase are going to be the ones that have the means to avoid paying the taxes anyway, through high powered tax attorneys and accountants. 
If that's the case, they're paying too much for those attorneys and accounts. The top 1% account for 21.2% of the income and a whopping 39.38% of the total tax revenue. One percent pays almost forty percent of the revenue? Who says the rich don't pay their fair share?

Quote from: denoginizer on June 10, 2008, 12:42:34 PM

The focus must be on cutting government spending while maintaining the Bush tax cuts.  Unfortunately people do not get elected by telling people they are going to eliminate government programs.   Increased taxes on the wealthy without concurrent cuts in federal spending are meaningless.
agree. We need to cut spending in a massive way.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Eightball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1387


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: June 10, 2008, 03:57:02 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on June 10, 2008, 01:28:22 PM

No, I'm quite serious.  The idea that all these rich guys are running around not paying taxes is goofy.  *If* they are not paying taxes, they're by and large doing it the same way anyone else would -- by getting the same deductions you can. 

Except for the DNC's money men, the hedge fund managers, who only pay capital gains taxes (and no personal income taxes) due to tax loopholes.  Loopholes that folks like Chuck Schumer specifically will not allow to be closed, since these guys contribute to the DNC (the bill discussed in the article died in the Senate.)

Just even taxing the top 25 hedge fund managers would get 2 billion a year more in taxes.

Quote
A simple calculation shows that this preferential tax treatment for the top 25 individuals alone costs the Treasury almost $2 billion.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: June 10, 2008, 06:20:15 PM »

Here is an article from CNN that discusses each candidates' stand on economic issues.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/04/news/economy/mccain_obama_econplans/index.htm?postversion=2008060708

I found this line at the end interesting, although not very surprising.

Quote
Despite the candidates' promises, experts are skeptical that either candidates' economic proposals when taken as a whole could be fiscally sound.

The quote sites the following article.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/06/news/economy/pay_for_plans/index.htm?postversion=2008050703
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: June 11, 2008, 12:08:05 AM »

Quote from: Jeff Jones on June 10, 2008, 12:31:22 PM

Quote from: naednek on June 10, 2008, 12:25:55 PM

so much for staying on topic and discussing the topic on hand.

Cite legitimate (non-propaganda) sources and we can do that.

Fox news is the highest rated news source.

For YEARS I did  finger finger finger  to ABC.    This  finger finger finger to CBS.   This  finger finger finger to NBC.   And THIS  finger finger finger to CNN.

CHICKENS HAVE COME HOME TO ROOST.     A conservative channel is the highest rated now, and every time it pisses people off like this I LOVE it.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: June 11, 2008, 12:10:27 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on June 10, 2008, 01:45:31 PM

In the style of msduncan:

link

Largest deficit in 25 years - 5.7 trillion dollars.  Largest debt since WWII.

link

Tax cuts for the rich.

link
link
link
link

Massive cuts in social security, non-discretionary spending (NASA!), and medicare.  Does not address cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Proposals come "nowhere near generating the sums necessary to meet the costs."

link

1.2 billion dollar tax break for Exxon.

edited:  now with more links!



Can we discuss McCain's economic proposals instead?   I realize your talking points call for making Bush = McCain but I kinda wanted to talk about the different plans.    Kthanks.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: June 11, 2008, 12:13:13 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 11, 2008, 12:08:05 AM

Fox news is the highest rated news source.

I assume you mean "has the highest ratings for a cable news network", because they've always been derided for their accuracy.   Yes, it's true.  In other news, the New York Post has a higher daily circulation than the Washington Post, so it must be a more reliable news outlet.
Logged
Biyobi
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 718


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: June 11, 2008, 12:13:59 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 11, 2008, 12:08:05 AM

CHICKENS HAVE COME HOME TO ROOST.     A conservative channel is the highest rated now, and every time it pisses people off like this I LOVE it.

Of course it's the highest rated.  All the ultra right wingnuts have exactly one outlet the tells them what they want to hear.  The rest of us lefty wingnuts get to pick and choose among many, diversifying their numbers. icon_wink
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: June 11, 2008, 12:14:30 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 11, 2008, 12:10:27 AM

Can we discuss McCain's economic proposals instead?   I realize your talking points call for making Bush = McCain but I kinda wanted to talk about the different plans.    Kthanks.

Every link I provided is to a discussion of McCain's economic plan, complete with msduncan-style "analysis".
Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1568


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: June 11, 2008, 12:16:13 AM »

Not so fast my friend

Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: June 11, 2008, 01:17:56 AM »

Quote from: Biyobi on June 11, 2008, 12:13:59 AM

Quote from: msduncan on June 11, 2008, 12:08:05 AM

CHICKENS HAVE COME HOME TO ROOST.     A conservative channel is the highest rated now, and every time it pisses people off like this I LOVE it.

Of course it's the highest rated.  All the ultra right wingnuts have exactly one outlet the tells them what they want to hear.  The rest of us lefty wingnuts get to pick and choose among many, diversifying their numbers. icon_wink

Actually it's also probably due to all the hot chicks on the channel.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: June 11, 2008, 01:24:40 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on June 11, 2008, 12:13:13 AM

Quote from: msduncan on June 11, 2008, 12:08:05 AM

Fox news is the highest rated news source.

I assume you mean "has the highest ratings for a cable news network", because they've always been derided for their accuracy.   Yes, it's true.  In other news, the New York Post has a higher daily circulation than the Washington Post, so it must be a more reliable news outlet.
Derided by who?  Non-biased news outlets?

Of course we should just agree to disagree and actually discuss the issues instead of pissing on each other.    I meant for this thread to do just that until you jumped in with the snark attack right off the bat.
Logged
Exodor
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 481


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: June 11, 2008, 01:58:08 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 11, 2008, 01:24:40 AM

Derided by who?  Non-biased news outlets?


Yeah, who ever said FoxNews was biased? 
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: June 11, 2008, 02:23:16 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 11, 2008, 01:24:40 AM

Quote from: Brendan on June 11, 2008, 12:13:13 AM

Quote from: msduncan on June 11, 2008, 12:08:05 AM

Fox news is the highest rated news source.

I assume you mean "has the highest ratings for a cable news network", because they've always been derided for their accuracy.   Yes, it's true.  In other news, the New York Post has a higher daily circulation than the Washington Post, so it must be a more reliable news outlet.
Derided by who?  Non-biased news outlets?

Of course we should just agree to disagree and actually discuss the issues instead of pissing on each other.    I meant for this thread to do just that until you jumped in with the snark attack right off the bat.

Read the studies and reports section for academic and think-tank reports.

It's laughable that you claim that my "snark attack" derailed this from being a discussion of "the issues."  You make no effort at balanced analysis in any of your dealings with liberal policies or politicians, and your initial post demonstrated it.

If you were sincerely attempting to understand Obama's economic proposals, you could make a list of pros/cons, details sources of funding and destinations of funding, etc, but instead you picked out two red-meat conservative issues and presented them in context-less fashion.  My response was exactly as illuminative as yours, by design.
Logged
McBa1n
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 327



View Profile
« Reply #31 on: June 11, 2008, 04:56:55 AM »

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lGXcT_ktg8c

This is Obama's speech from NC yesterday. He laid out some more framework on his policies and contrasted them - so use some caution. I wish I could dig up the numbers from both's claims that I read (in several places) - both are talking out of their asses, though.
It is a tremendous speech, though.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: June 11, 2008, 05:04:32 AM »

Latest NYT piece on the two competing alternatives.

McCain:

Quote
Mr. McCain, who once opposed the Bush tax cuts in part because they favored the wealthy, has now made extending those cuts a central plank in his economic plan, which is based largely on the Republican credo that tax reductions stimulate the economy. And he is pushing another strain of fiscal conservatism that has not been much in evidence of late: a call for smaller government and a vow to cut pork-barrel spending.

He often adds a dash of populism, speaking against excessive corporate pay packages on Tuesday, and has pushed for a gasoline-tax reprieve. And while Mr. McCain has portrayed his tax cuts as benefiting the middle class, most of the benefits would go to the wealthy and to corporations, including his calls for the elimination of the alternative minimum tax.

Quote
Mr. McCain wants to extend the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, cut corporate taxes and keep capital-gains taxes low. The tax cuts he promotes as benefiting the middle class include doubling the size of the exemption people can claim for each child. And his call for repealing the alternative minimum tax, while it would still help some middle-class taxpayers, would still largely benefit the wealthy: some 80 percent of the benefit would go to the top 10 percent of earners, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington.

Obama:

Quote
Mr. Obama often speaks of the traditional liberal goal of trying to redistribute the tax burden to reduce economic inequality, and at least in his public pronouncements has not emphasized the market-friendly, deficit-reduction aspects of the economic approach credited to former President Bill Clinton and former Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin in the 1990s. Mr. Obama’s plan would raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 by allowing Mr. Bush’s tax cuts on top earners to expire, and he has signaled that he would consider increasing the current cap on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax.

He has also proposed, for instance, more spending on providing access to health care, which critics say would widen the deficit when coupled with tax cuts. While Mr. McCain asserted in a speech in Washington on Tuesday that under Mr. Obama’s tax plan Americans of every background would see their taxes rise, Mr. Obama’s plan calls for cutting taxes on people earning less than $75,000 a year and for eliminating federal income taxes on elderly citizens who make less than $50,000 a year.

Quote
Mr. Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy lapse, and he wants to raise the tax on capital gains and dividends and to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. He also wants to keep the estate tax, which many Republicans deride as the “death tax,” on people with estates valued at more than $3.5 million; Mr. McCain would exempt people with estates valued at up to $10 million and would impose a much lower tax rate. Mr. Obama wants to use some of that money to pay for his middle-class tax cut and for the elimination of income taxes on retirees.

Both:

Quote
Experts say that both the McCain plan and the Obama plan would increase the deficit, and that neither man has adequately explained how his proposals would be paid for. But several analysts have said they believe that Mr. McCain’s plan would increase the deficit more, because of the size of the tax cuts he is seeking.

Quote
Alan Viard, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former economist for the Federal Reserve Bank who worked in the Council of Economic Advisers during President Bush’s first term, said, “If you compare McCain and Obama’s proposals, one interesting point that people often don’t realize is that both have pretty substantial tax cuts.”

“We know that McCain wants to make all of them permanent,” Mr. Viard said of the Bush tax cuts, “but Senator Obama wants to make a pretty good chunk of them permanent as well.”
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: June 11, 2008, 06:20:08 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on June 11, 2008, 05:04:32 AM


Quote from: Jeff Jones on June 10, 2008, 12:31:22 PM

Cite legitimate (non-propaganda) sources and we can do that.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: June 11, 2008, 06:38:18 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on June 11, 2008, 06:20:08 AM

Quote from: Brendan on June 11, 2008, 05:04:32 AM


Quote from: Jeff Jones on June 10, 2008, 12:31:22 PM

Cite legitimate (non-propaganda) sources and we can do that.

Please demonstrate any factual errors or elisions in the Times article, or else this will have been yet another worthless post you've made.  The passages I quoted refer to policies easily sourced at Obama or McCain's websites.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: June 11, 2008, 12:29:31 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on June 11, 2008, 06:38:18 AM

Quote from: cheeba on June 11, 2008, 06:20:08 AM

Quote from: Brendan on June 11, 2008, 05:04:32 AM


Quote from: Jeff Jones on June 10, 2008, 12:31:22 PM

Cite legitimate (non-propaganda) sources and we can do that.

Please demonstrate any factual errors or elisions in the Times article, or else this will have been yet another worthless post you've made.  The passages I quoted refer to policies easily sourced at Obama or McCain's websites.

In fairness the same thing could be said about the Fox News story at the top of the thread.

After reading through several articles on both candidate's proposals in the last few days I like Obama's better.  Neither is perfect, but unless I get a big raise over the next four year to over $250K per year Obama's plan would suit me best. Provided he follows through with his claims and is able to get most of his policies through Congress. 
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: June 11, 2008, 01:00:48 PM »

There's not much new there , but there is an interesting contrast in the fundamental question of whether the government should forcibly redistribute wealth, and the corollary, what constitutes a "fair share" of each of us paying for the government.

Personally, I think the inheritance tax is bogus for a couple of reasons, including the fact that it makes it hard for family-owned businesses to transition from generation to generation, not to mention the fact that I find it disingenuous that the government thinks it should get a piece every time someone dies and the heirs inherit.  I just don't see the logic in that.

The AMT also has to go.  The fact that 80% of the benefit goes to this nebulous "wealthy" bogeyman is a poor reason to hamstring the other 20% that get screwed by this decades-old attempt to plug a loophole that was foolishly created without any accounting for inflation.

On the other hand, doubling the child tax credit is weak, but since the vast majority of Americans are afraid to oppose anything that's "for the children" it's a safe pander, and one that I'm sure will meet with great popular support. 

Finally, McCain's "Gas tax reprieve" is preposterous.  Minimal effect, but a great sound bite to capture stupid people.  Exactly the kind of thing that I loathe.

As for Obama, I'm not a fan of raising the social security contribution cap.  That fund is already horribly mismanaged, and used in all sorts of accounting games.  Why should I have to pay MORE into it when the conventional wisdom is that I'll never see a dime of what I put in anyway.

It's also completely beyond me why senior citizens shouldn't have to pay income taxes.

What I want to see, and what is conspicuously absent, is what spending each candidate will *eliminate* to ensure we only pay intaxes what we *need to* instead of paying more and more for a variety of pet projects, social engineering experiments, and misguided moral initiatives.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: June 11, 2008, 02:40:21 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on June 11, 2008, 12:29:31 PM

In fairness the same thing could be said about the Fox News story at the top of the thread.

After reading through several articles on both candidate's proposals in the last few days I like Obama's better.  Neither is perfect, but unless I get a big raise over the next four year to over $250K per year Obama's plan would suit me best. Provided he follows through with his claims and is able to get most of his policies through Congress. 

I have no particular issue with the Fox News story - just with msduncan's "summary".

As far as getting policies through congress, the Democrats will control the house again, and will almost certainly increase their control in the senate, so it's more likely that Obama can deliver on his plan than McCain.
Logged
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21052



View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: June 11, 2008, 02:48:23 PM »

Quote
Neither is perfect
Couldn't have summed it better myself.  Don't overlook a good solution when there is no 'perfect' solution.
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8972


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: June 11, 2008, 06:47:17 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on June 11, 2008, 01:00:48 PM

There's not much new there , but there is an interesting contrast in the fundamental question of whether the government should forcibly redistribute wealth, and the corollary, what constitutes a "fair share" of each of us paying for the government.

Personally, I think the inheritance tax is bogus for a couple of reasons, including the fact that it makes it hard for family-owned businesses to transition from generation to generation, not to mention the fact that I find it disingenuous that the government thinks it should get a piece every time someone dies and the heirs inherit.  I just don't see the logic in that.

The AMT also has to go.  The fact that 80% of the benefit goes to this nebulous "wealthy" bogeyman is a poor reason to hamstring the other 20% that get screwed by this decades-old attempt to plug a loophole that was foolishly created without any accounting for inflation.

On the other hand, doubling the child tax credit is weak, but since the vast majority of Americans are afraid to oppose anything that's "for the children" it's a safe pander, and one that I'm sure will meet with great popular support. 

Finally, McCain's "Gas tax reprieve" is preposterous.  Minimal effect, but a great sound bite to capture stupid people.  Exactly the kind of thing that I loathe.

As for Obama, I'm not a fan of raising the social security contribution cap.  That fund is already horribly mismanaged, and used in all sorts of accounting games.  Why should I have to pay MORE into it when the conventional wisdom is that I'll never see a dime of what I put in anyway.

It's also completely beyond me why senior citizens shouldn't have to pay income taxes.

What I want to see, and what is conspicuously absent, is what spending each candidate will *eliminate* to ensure we only pay intaxes what we *need to* instead of paying more and more for a variety of pet projects, social engineering experiments, and misguided moral initiatives.

Agreed with you, pretty much point for point. 

Ultimately I don't really believe that either candidate has a snowball's chance in hell of getting their entire plan done.  As someone who finds the concept of 'redistributing wealth' as ridiculously preposterous, stupid, and counter intuitive to capitalism, I find large issues with the overall theme of the Obama plan.  That being said, at least his 'plan' makes sense relative to the competition (false praise for sure). 

McCain's plan is asinine.  In overall theory I agree with less taxes, BUT NOT WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO SPEND MORE.  I don't particular care about who's going to end up paying our national debt (cause it sure as fuck isn't going to be me - I'll be dead and gone), but I do think the combination of cutting taxes and spending more money is politicking at its worsts: pandering to what people want to hear but not having it make a lick of sense at all.

In other words, both suck.  A lot.

gellar
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.232 seconds with 104 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.061s, 2q)