D?j? vu all over again?

[scooterbug44]

I love that it is financial Armageddon because he has mentioned reverting to previous tax rates and not continuing tax cuts! :roll:

 

[traderx]

Tax receipts during Clinton's watch increased 61% over his first year. During Bush's watch, government receipts increased 34% and that was after the Greenspan Y2K overreaction induced stock market crash. Spending under Clinton rose only 31% while spending under Bush increased by 45%.

Spending has much more to do with Congress than the President but having said that, Bush never vetoed a bill until recently.

The US Tax Code is 17,000 pages long if I recollect correctly. Can we agree that it is long enough already or should we increase it to 25,000 pages?

I could reduce the entire tax code to one page and make it fair for all.

This Baby Ruth bar tastes funny...

 

[Linda]

Tax receipts during Clinton's watch increased 61% over his first year. During Bush's watch, government receipts increased 34% and that was after the Greenspan Y2K overreaction induced stock market crash. Spending under Clinton rose only 31% while spending under Bush increased by 45%.

Spending has much more to do with Congress than the President but having said that, Bush never vetoed a bill until recently.
The US Tax Code is 17,000 pages long if I recollect correctly. Can we agree that it is long enough already or should we increase it to 25,000 pages?

I could reduce the entire tax code to one page and make it fair for all.

This Baby Ruth bar tastes funny...

Exactly right - As a fiscal conservative I am very disappointed in Bush for not doing anything to cut spending. It was the reason that John McCain voted against the tax cuts (much to my dismay). Limit government spending and make the tax cuts permanent.

 

[30ashopper]

Just for reference, he stated originally that he wanted to raise cap. gains to 28%, much higher than H. Clinton. He later stated (and it still stands) on CNBC 25-28% claiming the experts he had spoken with stated that those rates would not impede investment.

Additionally, he has stated he wishes to raise the dividend tax from 15% to (I believe) 39.7%. That's a very big hike and may affect investment.

He has also stated he wishes to eliminate the social security tax cap. This has never been done before. It will convert SS from a moderately progressive tax to a very progressive one. I believe this alone will hit the economy quite a bit if he gets it through. (Although I don't think he will, moderate dems and reps will prevent it.)

Why don't we step around the discussion of whether or not Obama is a progressive who wants to raise taxes on people who make good income. He is, that's what he wants to do, it's that simple. This is the social Democratic stance - fair over free for the most part when it comes to income distribution, services, and trade. Some folks agree with that, some don't. It's an ideological difference.

I think though that a significant number of Obama supporters are not social democrats, but that they are caught up in the message, the look and feel, the race issue, and are not paying attention to policy. (Yay! Back on topic!) I think in the end they'll regret that. Some of us have seen what this kind of policy can do to the economy (assuming you were around for the 70's). I feel it's a lesson a significant number of Obama's followers have not yet learned or are ignoring. It's looking like they will get the chance to learn it again.

 

[traderx]

Back to the original point of this thread, Yahoo's current news story front and center is about the "playful fist bump" between Obama and his wife. Is it me or is the press just giddy about Obama?

Pasted below is the closing paragraph of the story.

Of course, no one would dare presume that a simple fist bump will elevate Senator Obama to the White House. But an article from New York Magazine speculates that the knocking of knuckles may go a long way toward proving that the aspiring commander-in-chief is actually kind of hip. When was the last time you could say that about a presidential candidate and keep a straight face?

Hip? Substance? What substance?

 

[pgurney]

The capital gains tax is not just about stocks. The capital gains tax is about selling an asset. It doesn't consider how long you've owned it (except for the difference between short and long term gains = 1 year) or the rate of inflation. In some people's cases it could be about selling a company, or intellectual property, in which you've had the honor of paying income taxes all along while developing those items for sale....again while paying income taxes to do so. It can be about receiving a meager royalty on something you've sold...while none of it considers the rate of inflation.

To tax wealth, while not taxing the wealthy, would mean that people who are not wealthy have wealth. That sounds like a slogan to me. I am not wealthy by any means, but if someone wants to increase capital gains taxes on me, because they consider it wealth....Well, I'm thinking they are out of touch.

It's a misconception to consider capital gains as "wealth". It's just a plan to redistribute what some people have worked hard as hell for.

 

[Bob]

you should pay more because you can not because you want to...where that ends, who knows, so have at it,,,no one on the left side of the aisle considers investment begats jobs...well at least subhuman poor paying jobs lately.

 

[pgurney]

you should pay more because you can not because you want to...where that ends, who knows, so have at it

Please clarify?:funn:

 

[rancid]

Why don't we step around the discussion of whether or not Obama is a progressive who wants to raise taxes on people who make good income. He is, that's what he wants to do, it's that simple. This is the social Democratic stance - fair over free for the most part when it comes to income distribution, services, and trade. Some folks agree with that, some don't. It's an ideological difference.

I think though that a significant number of Obama supporters are not social democrats, but that they are caught up in the message, the look and feel, the race issue, and are not paying attention to policy. (Yay! Back on topic!) I think in the end they'll regret that. Some of us have seen what this kind of policy can do to the economy (assuming you were around for the 70's). I feel it's a lesson a significant number of Obama's followers have not yet learned or are ignoring. It's looking like they will get the chance to learn it again.

I am person who supports Obama and will see my taxes go up under his presidency. However, I am "caught up" in his message of changing and improving our country for all citizens. If that costs me some money then so be it.

The economy of the last 8 years has benefited few at the expense of many. Furthermore, Republican tax policy is not as good aa it seems on the surface. Take health care for example. The last few years have seen a huge increase in uninsured people seeking care through emergency rooms at the expense of the public. This has led to sharp increases in health care costs and much of this is passed on to Americans through their health care premiums. I would take some universal healthcare and lowering of my healthcare costs in exchange for an increase in my taxes.

 

[30ashopper]

I am person who supports Obama and will see my taxes go up under his presidency. However, I am "caught up" in his message of changing and improving our country for all citizens. If that costs me some money then so be it.

The economy of the last 8 years has benefited few at the expense of many. Furthermore, Republican tax policy is not as good aa it seems on the surface. Take health care for example. The last few years have seen a huge increase in uninsured people seeking care through emergency rooms at the expense of the public. This has led to sharp increases in health care costs and much of this is passed on to Americans through their health care premiums. I would take some universal healthcare and lowering of my healthcare costs in exchange for an increase in my taxes.

Boy, well, I disagree with your reasoning on healthcare costs but I'm in no mood to get into a healthcare debate tonight! It's almost the weekend!