HOLD ON BUCKO..........

 

McCain has also promised he would reduce spending tremendously through vetoing pork barrel spending

 

IF he holds to that, federal spending would drop tremendously.

 

 

That's Mr. Bucko!

 

From the Wikipedia entry on "Earmarks":

 

Citizens Against Government Waste identified 2,658 of the FY08 earmarks representing $13.2 billion as "Pork Projects", significantly lower than the numbers and dollar amounts of recent prior years: 13,997 "Pork Projects" for a total of $27.3 billion in 2005, and 9,963 projects for a total of $29 billion in 2006.[4]

 

 

The 2009 Federal Budget calls for $3.1 trillion of spending (that's 3,100 billions). According to the figures above, if every single expenditure labeled as "pork" were eliminated, it would only reduce federal spending by approximately $30 billion (less than 1% of the 2009 budget). The projected deficit is $482 billion. Cutting this type of spending is certainly a worthy endeavor and it makes a pretty good-sounding McCain sound bite, but don't kid yourself into thinking it will make much of a dent in the huge shortfall this country faces.

Agreed. Its a matter of "degree" that is the question.

The bottom 50 percent of wage earners pay three percent of federal income taxes. They do not need a tax cut but most of them will vote for Obama because he is promising them something that they do not deserve and wil probably not get anyway. If you look at the Tax Policy Center's numbers, you will see that Obama is supposedly promising people earning less than $19,000/yr. a $567 annual tax cut. Do you believe that people making less than $19,000 even pay $567 in federal income taxes?

The bottom 50 percent of wage earners pay three percent of federal income taxes. They do not need a tax cut but most of them will vote for Obama because he is promising them something that they do not deserve and wil probably not get anyway. If you look at the Tax Policy Center's numbers, you will see that Obama is supposedly promising people earning less than $19,000/yr. a $567 annual tax cut. Do you believe that people making less than $19,000 even pay $567 in federal income taxes?

 

If you're one of those in the bottom 50% and you're week to week on living, gas prices are still eating too much of your pay check, and you're trying to figure out how to get your kids into college, the fact that your group only pays 3% is irrelevant. I also am now sure how you determine what they "deserve." How do you quantify that?

 

No clue on the last question.

I agree with you - the lesson is not to believe every claim that you do not verify independently.

 

The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture between two liberal think tanks. The fact that the TPC's analysis is picked up and repeated by the mainstream media, which has demonstrated its political bias in an unprecedented way during this campaign, does not make its conclusions any more nonpartisan or unbiased.

 

 

Yawn. This response is straight from the GOP playbook--when faced with damaging analysis contrary to the agenda, attack the source as untrustworthy. Organization A isn't toeing the line on our policies; let's label them liberal and the problem goes away. This is a major reason why democracy in this country is broken. People have been conditioned by this tripe to think that every source of information is part of a carefully orchestrated master plan to lead them astray.

 

I personally am opposed to raising the income tax rate on any taxpayer, especially on those who are already bearing most of the tax burden. Soaking the rich is not a moral way to finance the operation of the federal government.

 

Neither is soaking our children with crippling debt caused by tax cuts favoring the super-rich.

Yawn. This response is straight from the GOP playbook--when faced with damaging analysis contrary to the agend, attack the source as untrustworthy. Organization A isn't toeing the line on our policies; let's label them liberal and the problem goes away. This is a major reason why democracy in this country is broken. People have been conditioned by this tripe to think that every source of information is part of a carefully orchestrated master plan to lead them astray.

Do you want to deny that the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute are any less liberal think tanks than the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank? The fact that the Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of two liberal think tanks does not invalidate its analysis but please do not pretend that the TPC is a nonpartisan authority.

Neither is soaking our children with crippling debt caused by tax cuts favoring the super-rich.

The super rich pay far more than their fair share of the tax bill in this country. Obama's spending and taxing proposals will do nothing to address the annual budget deficit or the national debt.

 

The class warfare waged by liberals in this country never ceases to amaze me. The biting the hand that feeds principle applies to job creators. Bite them often enough and they, their capital, and the jobs that they provide will find places where they will be more appreciated.

Obama has also proposed a near doubling of the capital gains tax to 28 percent. Do you want to exclude that tax from discussion as well? 100 million Americans who own stocks would be impacted by a capital gains tax increase and when the tax rate was previously cut, revenue from the tax went up. Of the 100 million Americans who own stocks, my guess is that most would not be considered rich by any measure.

 

The capital gains tax is one where McCain should hit him hard.

You double that you will see investments leave this country.

The capital gains tax is one where McCain should hit him hard.

You double that you will see investments leave this country.

I agree. We should be cutting the cost of doing business in this country and try to attract new jobs to this country not drive them away. I like McCain's proposal to cut corporate income tax rates. It worked wonders for Ireland's economy.

Obama---Raising the top bracket to 40 percent seemed a no-brainer. Applying the Social Security tax to more earned income, not just to the first $100,000, seemed like elemental fairness and a good way to save the pension system. Restoring the capital gains tax to 28 percent appeared to comport with the notion that those whose income derives from investment should pay a tax closer to that paid on earned income (despite the argument that it is after-tax money that they invested in the first place).

 

But now, with massive capital outflows crippling the public and private sectors, doubling the tax on capital seems like a very, very bad idea. And a sharp increase in taxes on the entrepreneurial class seems like a risky proposition.

 

This is from Dick Morris who knows how to run a campaign. I love his insight...he may be a goofball, but he does a good job with campaigns.

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/08/09/bad-times-can-boggle-bam/#more-398

Do you want to deny that the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute are any less liberal think tanks than the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank? The fact that the Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of two liberal think tanks does not invalidate its analysis but please do not pretend that the TPC is a nonpartisan authority.

 

Labelling an organization as 'liberal' is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. It is not a substantive argument. Unless you can provide examples of specific disagreement with the TPC's estimates of tax effects by income range, you have not provided any substantial reason to question the report's conclusions.

 

 

The super rich pay far more than their fair share of the tax bill in this country. Obama's spending and taxing proposals will do nothing to address the annual budget deficit or the national debt.

 

I am not enamored with any plan that results in a budget deficit, but Obama's plan has been shown by analysis to add less to the national debt over ten years than McCain's plan ($3.3 trillion vs $4.5 trillion). My preference would be a concrete plan to bring the budget into balance in one or two years. Since neither candidate has proposed this, I will support the lesser of two evils.

 

 

The class warfare waged by liberals in this country never ceases to amaze me. The biting the hand that feeds principle applies to job creators. Bite them often enough and they, their capital, and the jobs that they provide will find places where they will be more appreciated.

 

If you take this rather absurd argument to its logical conclusion, we should cut taxes for the super-rich to zero, in hopes that such a grovelling giveaway would entice the elite to provide jobs for the lower and middle class. The scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the highest incomes would result in top tax rates that are still relatively low historically (for example, of the 63 years since WWII, the pre-Bush top tax rate is still much lower than all but 11 of those years).

Edited August 11, 200818 yr by H

Labelling an organization as 'liberal' is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. It is not a substantive argument. Unless you can provide examples of specific disagreement with the TPC's estimates of tax effects by income range, you have not provided any substantial reason to question the report's conclusions.

 

 

If you take this rather absurd argument to its logical conclusion, we should cut taxes for the super-rich to zero, in hopes that such a grovelling giveaway would entice the elite to provide jobs for the lower and middle class.

1. Wait let me get this straight- you have a problem with AcesFull's response because it is ad hominem (partially rightfully so), and the best argument you can come up with is another logical fallacy- hyperbole (see the bolded)? You are better than that.

 

2. I don't necessarily disagree about the merits of the TPC with AcesFull- I have seen some numbers of there's that, in hindsight, were way off, but every link I can find is from the Heritage Foundation, so I am sure that you would discredit it.

Labelling an organization as 'liberal' is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. It is not a substantive argument. Unless you can provide examples of specific disagreement with the TPC's estimates of tax effects by income range, you have not provided any substantial reason to question the report's conclusions.

Do you mean like this one?

 

I would like to see a link documenting this near consensus among economists, AND I asked for this to not be from a partisan source (such as the Heritage Foundation) since it should be easy to find such evidence of such overwhelming agreement (if it exists) from an abundance of nonpartisan sources.

If it is wrong for me to point out the liberal bias of the organization that created the Tax Policy Center, then was it okay for you to do the same?

 

I am not enamored with any plan that results in a budget deficit, but Obama's plan has been shown by analysis to add less to the national debt over ten years than McCain's plan ($3.3 trillion vs $4.5 trillion). My preference would be a concrete plan to bring the budget into balance in one or two years. Since neither candidate has proposed this, I will support the lesser of two evils.

As I have pointed out before, the whole notion that campaign promises should be taken seriously and analyzed as if the candidates are bound in any way to them is silly. Obama is, according to at least one liberal organization, the most liberal US Senator. Assuming that his socialist initiatives such as the windfall profits tax will not do heavy damage to the economy and that our economy will simply absorb his mistakes and chug right along is not realistic.

 

If you can establish that the Tax Policy Center or any similar group has accurately forecasted economic performance based on previous campaign promises, then I will be duly impressed.

 

If you take this rather absurd argument to its logical conclusion, we should cut taxes for the super-rich to zero, in hopes that such a grovelling giveaway would entice the elite to provide jobs for the lower and middle class. The scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the highest incomes would result in top tax rates that are still relatively low historically (for example, of the 63 years since WWII, the pre-Bush top tax rate is still much lower than all but 11 of those years).

American tax rates are among the highest in the world with Bush's tax cuts. What worked in the past when we were competing against economies that had been devastated by wars will not fly in today's global economy.

 

Carrying the liberals' soak the rich mentality to its illogical conclusion, we could simply tax the rich out of existence and make everybody equally miserable. What could be more fair?

Yawn. This response is straight from the GOP playbook--when faced with damaging analysis contrary to the agenda, attack the source as untrustworthy. Organization A isn't toeing the line on our policies; let's label them liberal and the problem goes away. This is a major reason why democracy in this country is broken. People have been conditioned by this tripe to think that every source of information is part of a carefully orchestrated master plan to lead them astray.

 

 

 

Neither is soaking our children with crippling debt caused by tax cuts favoring the super-rich.

 

 

And your bolded part isn't straight from the Democratic class war playbook?

 

If you are so worried about your children, I think you better be first concerned about electing a President that has significant military, foreign policy and intelligence experience. If we stumble into WWIII while Obama is learning on the job or get subjected to repeated terrorist attacks on our country and its people while Obama gets up to speed, the amount of debt our children are going to be saddled with isn't going to be my most pressing concern.

And your bolded part isn't straight from the Democratic class war playbook?

 

If you are so worried about your children, I think you better be first concerned about electing a President that has significant military, foreign policy and intelligence experience. If we stumble into WWIII while Obama is learning on the job or get subjected to repeated terrorist attacks on our country and its people while Obama gets up to speed, the amount of debt our children are going to be saddled with isn't going to be my most pressing concern.

 

LN - let me challenge you a bit on this one. The only way I would agree with the above is IF you assume that the President does not have advisers or he has them but simply doesn't choose to use them/listen to them.

 

President Bush would seem to have been in the same boat. No foreign affairs experience. Never led a military. I don't think he ignored advice of those he trusted and those who had experience.

 

Why do we not allow for the fact that the POTUS has experts who give counsel?

And your bolded part isn't straight from the Democratic class war playbook?

 

If you are so worried about your children, I think you better be first concerned about electing a President that has significant military, foreign policy and intelligence experience. If we stumble into WWIII while Obama is learning on the job or get subjected to repeated terrorist attacks on our country and its people while Obama gets up to speed, the amount of debt our children are going to be saddled with isn't going to be my most pressing concern.

 

While I agree with you LN and that is shaping a lot of my view, when was the last one of those we had?

 

George Bush I is the last I can think of. This current Bush had no significant miliatry background. Clinton, well we know that story. Reagan had no combat experience if my memory serves and was one of many actors and stars that signed up during WW II. Carter had served the Navy but it didn't seem to help him. Kennedy and Bush I are the last two frontline vets we had as president and it seems to have served them well.

 

I think leadership is the factor regardless of military experience. That's the difference maker.

LN - let me challenge you a bit on this one. The only way I would agree with the above is IF you assume that the President does not have advisers or he has them but simply doesn't choose to use them/listen to them.

 

President Bush would seem to have been in the same boat. No foreign affairs experience. Never led a military. I don't think he ignored advice of those he trusted and those who had experience.

 

Why do we not allow for the fact that the POTUS has experts who give counsel?

 

 

Oh, we do allow for the fact that POTUS has experts who give counsel. But I seem to recall a lot of Bush detractors that felt his reliance on certain military and defense advisors got us into Iraq. The thinking being that since Bush had almost zero experience, he almost had to default to the advise of his counsel. Now I expect some to say that Obama will be smarter than Bush and surround himself with better advisors. Can you be totally certain of that? What if he is mistaken and doesn't pick the best advisors? With no personal experience in those advisors, how can be push back against bad advise from his advisors or know enough to dig into the advise deeper and ask questions?

 

I can say this quite confidently: even though I voted for Bush in the past (not the 2000 primary however), I would have a hard time voting for him in 08 if he was running against a Democrat with a lot more experience in military, foreign policy and intelligence areas because of his inexperience in those areas.