Obama on Taxes

[_dartagnan]

Obama can afford to cut taxes if he slashes the massive defense budget by ending the unnecessary US presence in Iraq. Of course, narrow minded republicans don't like to put those two thoughts in the same sentence, because it makes too much sense, and sense is not something rabid republicans really have.

Are you really this stupid? Obama never said he was going to bail out of Iraq immediately. He never said he was going to put a spending freeze on defense. And even if we did bail out of Iraq today, it would still not be enough to pay for all that Obama is proposing.

Obama never blamed the current economic situation on the Iraq war. That would be too convenient for McCain, so Obama blamed it instead on Bush's "economic policies." What policies? He never says, nor can he name any. He just expects to fool idiots like you into thinking it must be true since he said it.

What economic policies has Bush succeeded in? His Tax cuts, which Obama disagreed with. Now suddenly he is adopting that same Bush "economic policy" just so he can get votes from the middle-ground and the right. He's a liar and a bad one at that.

You were too stupid to know Obama was a race-baiter on the other thread and you're too stupid to even know what Obama's plan really is on this one. It makes sense that you'll vote for him. Very fitting.

More later...

[_dartagnan]

More later, but I wanted to respond to this quickly before I head out...

You need to figure out how to tell the difference between campaign rhetoric and actual beliefs.

But Analytics you lambasted me in the worst way because you thought I blamed the economic crisis on democrats alone - I didn't. Yet, here is Obama doing the exact same thing going in the other direction. I'd expect you to either believe him, or criticize him just the same. If blaming democrats shows economic ignorance, then how much more significant is this ignorance when a presidential candidate does it?

Can all of his lies and ignorant ramblings be passed off and excused as "campaign rhetoric"?

[_Some Schmo]

Are you really this stupid? Obama never said he was going to bail out of Iraq immediately. He never said he was going to put a spending freeze on defense. And even if we did bail out of Iraq today, it would still not be enough to pay for all that Obama is proposing.

Obama never blamed the current economic situation on the Iraq war. That would be too convenient for McCain, so Obama blamed it instead on Bush's "economic policies." What policies? He never says, nor can he name any. He just expects to fool idiots like you into thinking it must be true since he said it.

What economic policies has Bush succeeded in? His Tax cuts, which Obama disagreed with. Now suddenly he is adopting that same Bush "economic policy" just so he can get votes from the middle-ground and the right. He's a liar and a bad one at that.

First off, being called stupid by you is the best compliment I could receive. I'm obviously making complete sense. So thanks.

Clearly, you don't listen to Obama, so you don't know what the hell you're talking about. He's mentioned many times he wants to end the war, partly because it's costing too much (I've heard him say many times things like, "How many things could we have improved at home with all the money spent on this war?") to free up money for domestic needs. That you've either ignored it, didn't hear it, or don't understand it (most likely) is hardly surprising.

When Obama talks about Bush's economic policies, it seems rather clear (to those who aren't too stupid to keep logical thoughts in their head from day to day) that one of the things he's talking about is the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strike which allows Bush to justify deficit-creating defense spending. Of course he never said (and nor did I) that he was going to "put a spending freeze on defense," Mr. Strawman. There's a difference between lowering a budget and abolishing it altogether (binary thinking man). And even if he cuts that spending in half, it would be a huge step toward funding his projects. I'm not willing to say it would pay for it all (I'm not as stupid as you are and make uninformed claims I haven't actually got the numbers to back up), because I don't know how much the Iraq occupation is costing us exactly (although I have a rough idea), nor do I know what all his programs will cost (and neither do you, ya dumbass - quit pretending you know things you haven't a clue about... although I'll bet any money you're going to go look it up now. LOL), but at least the money would be put to much better use. Imagine, American tax payers' money going to things that actually benefit American tax payers. What a concept!

And if you haven't heard him talking about tax cuts for the top earners and the trickle-down effect (Bush all the way) then again, you either aren't listening or don't understand (most likely).

So please, keep calling me a moron and an idiot. It's truly boosting my ego, and although I'm trying to stay humble, it still makes me feel all warm and tingly inside.

You were too stupid to know Obama was a race-baiter on the other thread and you're too stupid to even know what Obama's plan really is on this one. It makes sense that you'll vote for him. Very fitting.

LOL

Oh yeah, I'm sure everyone trusts that you, the local bigot, know what you're talking about. LMAO

You never fail to entertain. You're like... a clown (sometimes funny, sometimes downright scary). The only difference is that clowns try to be funny, and not scary. You're a joke by default.

[_Analytics]

All I can say is that once elected, I hope Obama is as responsible as Clinton was.

So you are ok if Obama does not give any tax cuts to middle and lower class income earners? That essentially is what Clinton did. No cuts for middle class and raised rates on upper.

I really don't think anything I am explaining to you is sinking in. It seemed that you might understand some of this and not be so ideological that you could not get to it. Guess I was wrong.

I think I understand what you are saying. My biggest beef with both parties on the issue of tax cuts is the fact that the government can't afford tax cuts--the Bush tax cuts--whether to the rich or poor--are being financed on the backs of our children. With regards to Clinton, at least his tax cuts were in the context of a budget surplus. George H. W. Bush paid a heavy political price for his famous tax hike, but it was the right thing to do. It is extraordinarily ironic that he paid a heavy political price for doing the right thing and that Clinton eventually got the credit for balancing the budget which happened in part because of Bush's tax hike.

My thoughts on taxes aren’t that ideological. Just because I prefer Obama as the better candidate doesn’t mean I agree with everything he’s saying about taxes.

Here is what I think about taxes:

1-I think the U.S. needs a balanced budget over the economic cycle. I’m willing for some Keynesian interventions so that there are deficits in recessions and surpluses in recoveries, but at the end of the cycle, we need a balanced budget.

2- I believe in a progressive tax structure. This is for a couple of reasons. First, as Tarski explained in another thread, there is a diminishing marginal utility of wealth. Thus, maximizing the utility of society as a whole entails having those who have much more than they need pay a little bit larger share. Second, quoting Obama, those of us who have benefited most from this new economy can best afford to shoulder the obligation of ensuring every American child has a chance for that same success..

3- I believe talking about tax breaks per se is the wrong conversation. What the conversation should be about is coming up with and refining a tax structure that allows the government to balance its budget in a way that is as fair as possible.

[_Analytics]

More later, but I wanted to respond to this quickly before I head out...

You need to figure out how to tell the difference between campaign rhetoric and actual beliefs.

But Analytics you lambasted me in the worst way because you thought I blamed the economic crisis on democrats alone - I didn't. Yet, here is Obama doing the exact same thing going in the other direction. I'd expect you to either believe him, or criticize him just the same....

That is a fair point. I’ve explained in relative detail my thoughts on the financial crisis. There were many compounding elements to it, and anybody who says they predicted that events would unfold as they did is lying; nobody saw this coming. When people look for somebody to demonize in simplistic terms—whether it be a pundit blaming it all on the GSEs or Obama blaming it all on Bush, they are wrong.

I reluctantly give politicians a pass on a lot of their rhetoric. Call me a liberal elitist, but the fact of the matter is that most American voters just don’t know what is going on. In order to get elected, you have to say catchy witticisms that rile people up. I wish it wasn’t so, but that is the sad reality of democracy.

If I were in a private conversation with McCain or with Obama, I’d expect them to largely agree with my analysis. I think Obama has a marginally better grasp of the complexities, but I think privately, they both more or less get it. However, Americans don’t like the truth when it hurts, and they don’t vote for honesty. Politicians need to lie to get elected.

Given that sad reality, I can’t fault McCain or Obama for trying to leverage the crisis to their respective advantages. That doesn’t mean people should believe it, and it doesn’t mean I have to toe the party line and pretend that their rhetoric is really true.

[_Jason Bourne]

I think I understand what you are saying. My biggest beef with both parties on the issue of tax cuts is the fact that the government can't afford tax cuts--the Bush tax cuts--whether to the rich or poor--are being financed on the backs of our children. With regards to Clinton, at least his tax cuts were in the context of a budget surplus. George H. W. Bush paid a heavy political price for his famous tax hike, but it was the right thing to do. It is extraordinarily ironic that he paid a heavy political price for doing the right thing and that Clinton eventually got the credit for balancing the budget which happened in part because of Bush's tax hike.

My thoughts on taxes aren’t that ideological. Just because I prefer Obama as the better candidate doesn’t mean I agree with everything he’s saying about taxes.

Here is what I think about taxes:

1-I think the U.S. needs a balanced budget over the economic cycle. I’m willing for some Keynesian interventions so that there are deficits in recessions and surpluses in recoveries, but at the end of the cycle, we need a balanced budget.

2- I believe in a progressive tax structure. This is for a couple of reasons. First, as Tarski explained in another thread, there is a diminishing marginal utility of wealth. Thus, maximizing the utility of society as a whole entails having those who have much more than they need pay a little bit larger share. Second, quoting Obama, those of us who have benefited most from this new economy can best afford to shoulder the obligation of ensuring every American child has a chance for that same success..

3- I believe talking about tax breaks per se is the wrong conversation. What the conversation should be about is coming up with and refining a tax structure that allows the government to balance its budget in a way that is as fair as possible.

Now this I think I can agree with accept I would want to make sure the progressiveness of the tax structure was not overly egregious. I would not object to the rates Clinton had in effect for upper income earners and I would not object to dividends being taxes as ordinary income rather than at 15% but all this contingent on fiscal responsibility and balancing budgets.

[_richardMdBorn]

I think I understand what you are saying. My biggest beef with both parties on the issue of tax cuts is the fact that the government can't afford tax cuts--the Bush tax cuts--whether to the rich or poor--are being financed on the backs of our children. With regards to Clinton, at least his tax cuts were in the context of a budget surplus. George H. W. Bush paid a heavy political price for his famous tax hike, but it was the right thing to do. It is extraordinarily ironic that he paid a heavy political price for doing the right thing and that Clinton eventually got the credit for balancing the budget which happened in part because of Bush's tax hike.

My thoughts on taxes aren’t that ideological. Just because I prefer Obama as the better candidate doesn’t mean I agree with everything he’s saying about taxes.

Here is what I think about taxes:

1-I think the U.S. needs a balanced budget over the economic cycle. I’m willing for some Keynesian interventions so that there are deficits in recessions and surpluses in recoveries, but at the end of the cycle, we need a balanced budget.

2- I believe in a progressive tax structure. This is for a couple of reasons. First, as Tarski explained in another thread, there is a diminishing marginal utility of wealth. Thus, maximizing the utility of society as a whole entails having those who have much more than they need pay a little bit larger share. Second, quoting Obama, those of us who have benefited most from this new economy can best afford to shoulder the obligation of ensuring every American child has a chance for that same success..

3- I believe talking about tax breaks per se is the wrong conversation. What the conversation should be about is coming up with and refining a tax structure that allows the government to balance its budget in a way that is as fair as possible.

The federal government budget deficit/surplus is calculated on a cash basis. Given the huge unfunded liabilities for social security and medicare/medicaid, this is nonsense accounting.

[_Jason Bourne]

.[/quote]The federal government budget deficit/surplus is calculated on a cash basis. Given the huge unfunded liabilities for social security and medicare/medicaid, this is nonsense accounting.[/quote]

Richard,

I am not sure I get your point. This just makes the budget deficit more problematic.

[_richardMdBorn]

Richard,

I am not sure I get your point. This just makes the budget deficit more problematic.

I'm saying that you can balance the budget on a cash basis while increasing the unfunded liability through expanding SS or medicare. The unfunded liability needs to be considered in any discussion of the deficit.

[_Droopy]

Obama insists it was the "philosophy" of giving to the rich, which is really an idiotic comment that misleads voters, because you're not giving money to the rich by simply allowing them to keep more of what they earn.

Only the Left can see cutting taxes as "giving" something to somebody. The very idea that allowing anybody, rich, middle class, or otherwise, to keep more of the money that already belongs to them can be interpreted as a "giving" away of something is logically as well as morally preposterous.

Every single solitary penny that an individual earns belongs to that individual, not to any other individual and not to the state. Obama's philosophy, as does the philosophy of the cultural Left of which he is a representative, implies that the state has an inherent preemptive claim on a specific quantity of the money you earn (and the concept of progressivity in tax rates implies that his claim theoretically rises to 100%) and that, for all intents and purposes, some part of the fruits of your labor never really belongs to you at all (which is part of the psychological trick played by the payroll withholding tax). Government has a preemptive right to seize some portion of your earnings, and then allows you to keep some portion of it after you have satisfied government's demands. In our progressive tax system, and in the socialist ideology of the Democratic party, virtually all of the money you earn from your labor is theoretically the property of the state, and a percentage of that is then given over to you as a remainder once your tax obligation has been satisfied. You cannot be paid-your employer cannot pay you, until government's preemptive claim has been met. Big Brother's hand is over your entire paycheck until tribute has been received.

This is a pure and unvarnished populist class warfare approach to politics that appeals to some of the basest passions and features of the human condition (which is why it is so often effective, and why Obama is using it now).

This is the philosophy of the Left, of the modern Democratic party, and is a core aspect of the ideology known as socialism.