I want to be sincere, and honest. Senators Obama, and Clinton are good Democratic candidates. I think Hillary is preferable. This a monumental time for having these candidates. Hillary is the consummate tactical politician, Obama is world class at charisma and delivery...It's like choosing between a .45 or .357 magnum...both are impressive and choosing one and discarding the other is difficult,..and both are so, so, so much better than Gore and Kerry or the recent others (excluding Bill)... Gore and Kerry had several "holes", such as the voted for before voted against, or the photo op with the shotgun,...or the HE BETRAYED US! yell, or the look at these charts and analysis, but don't look at my home(S) cause... There is less phony-baloney or hypricate transparency. Congratulations. The style of the frothy spit and yelps of the Gores and Deans of the past are absent from Hillary and Obama...I appreciate this style of delivery much more and hope those liberal posters here recognize the distinction... With that said, make no mistake ...I will vote Republican,...not so much as the democrats don't have 2 great nominees, but moreso the political ideology which I feel is the wrong way forward... I am one of those weirdos who think there have been good Democratic Presidents not because of ideology, but because of characteristics...A perfect example was President Truman...A President I think of as one of the best, not because of ideology, but because of charateristics... I have a linked thread which is 7 days old, and this thread helps demonstrate my belief of why a liberal/democratic/socialistic/communistic ideology is a wrong way to go forward...Think about it... Politics will always be about who gets what, when, where, and How, and there are some great advances from the left, as there have of course been from the right...but the deal with taxation concerns me regarding the middle-class and the overall economy (especially entrepreneurs and small business) Taxation stumps job creation incentive...If I'm President, I can promise a chicken in the pot and 2 cars in the driveway for every American! ...but I'm going to also make the American people pay for it.... It concerns me that there seems to be a swing to the further left to promise more,...and we all know who eventually pays for it...All of us... http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CLB01229&read=15669 Thursday, February 14, 2008 Lawrence Kudlow Obama’s Big-Government Vision It’s old-fashioned-liberal tax, spend, and regulate. Sen. Barack Obama is very gloomy about America, and he’s aligning himself with the liberal wing of the Democratic party in hopes of coming to the nation’s rescue. His proposal? Big-government planning, spending, and taxing — exactly what the nation and the stock market do not want to hear. Obama unveiled much of his economic strategy in Wisconsin this week: He wants to spend $150 billion on a green-energy plan. He wants to establish an infrastructure investment bank to the tune of $60 billion. He wants to expand health insurance by roughly $65 billion. He wants to “reopen” trade deals, which is another way of saying he wants to raise the barriers to free trade. He intends to regulate the profits for drug companies, health insurers, and energy firms. He wants to establish a mortgage-interest tax credit. He wants to double the number of workers receiving the earned-income tax credit and triple this benefit for minimum-wage workers. The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won’t pay for it.It’s the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth. This isn’t free enterprise. It’s old-fashioned-liberal tax, spend, and regulate. It’s plain ol’ big government. The only people who will benefit are the central planners in Washington. Obama would like voters to believe that he’s the second coming of JFK. But with his unbelievable spending and new-government-agency proposals he’s looking more and more like Jimmy Carter. His is a “Grow the Government Bureaucracy Plan,” and it’s totally at odds with investment and business. Obama says he wants U.S. corporations to stop “shipping jobs overseas” and bring their cash back home. But if he really wanted U.S. companies to keep more of their profits in the states he’d be calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate. Why isn’t he demanding an end to the double-taxation of corporate earnings? It’s simple: He wants higher taxes, too. The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore has done the math on Obama’s tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax. Not only is Obama the big-spending candidate, he’s also the very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital. Doesn’t Obama understand the vital role of capital formation in creating businesses and jobs? Doesn’t he understand that without capital, businesses can’t expand their operations and hire more workers? Dan Henninger, writing in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, notes that Obama’s is a profoundly pessimistic message. “Strip away the new coat of paint from the Obama message and what you find is not only familiar,” writes Henninger. “It’s a downer.” Obama wants you to believe that America is in trouble, and that it can only be cured with a big lurch to the left. Take from the rich and give to the non-rich. Redistribute income and wealth. It’s an age-old recipe for economic disaster. It completely ignores incentives for entrepreneurs, small family-owned businesses, and investors. You can’t have capitalism without capital. But Obama would penalize capital, be it capital from corporations or investors. This will only harm, and not advance, opportunities for middle-class workers. Obama believes he can use government, and not free markets, to drive the economy. But on taxes, trade, and regulation, Obama’s program is anti-growth. A President Obama would steer us in the social-market direction of Western Europe, which has produced only stagnant economies down through the years. It would be quite an irony. While newly emerging nations in Eastern Europe and Asia are lowering the tax penalties on capital — and reaping the economic rewards — Obama would raise them. Low-rate flat-tax plans are proliferating around the world. Yet Obama completely ignores this. American competitiveness would suffer enormously under Obama, as would job opportunities, productivity, and real wages. Imitate the failures of Germany, Norway, and Sweden? That’s no way to run economic policy. I have so far been soft on Obama this election season. In many respects he is a breath of fresh air. He’s an attractive candidate with an appealing approach to politics. Obama is likeable, and sometimes he gets it — such as when he opposed Hillary Clinton’s five-year rate-freeze on mortgages. But his message is pessimism, not hope. And behind the charm and charisma is a big-government bureaucrat who would take us down the wrong economic road
i agree that hillary and obama are two candidates that are head and shoulders better than gore and kerry, and it's not even close. you could also include dukakis, mondale, carter, mcgovern, and humphey to that list
Nice post, Roxran. One of my biggest problems with both Hillary and Barack is their economic policy. The Kudlow piece does a nice job of laying that out. Thanks for posting. We must have free trade and a continuation of the tax cuts that Bush passed. Not continuing those as our economy makes its way out of this bit of trouble would be criminal.
I heard Obama said in one of his speeches that 75k is his dividing line between wealthy and average. Hmm, I am guessing tax families who earn 75k or more is going to hurt a lot more middle class than the truly wealthy. The scary part is he will try to push for some radical changes in areas that he is completely inexperienced. Remember the Jimmy Carter years?
Roxran; I'm a bit confused by your analysis. You say you like Democrats based on their characteristics rather than ideology yet your critique of the two Democratic front runners is almost wholly ideologically based.
george bush is the biggest liberal president we have ever had. he doubled the size of the federal government and spent more than all previous presidents combined in only 4 years. but people are still duped into thinking he is a conservative.
That article pretty much sums it up for me. Obama's economic policies would be a disaster. All the feel good speeches in the world won't make a difference once that happens. And if I hear one more reference in the Dem debates to how the wealthy are getting over on the middle class because of the Bush tax cuts, I'm gonna be sick. Newsflash! The top income earners are paying a HIGHER percentage of taxes now than they did during the Clinton years. That's why I can't in good conscience vote for Dems in Presidential elections. This class warfare bullsh-t has to stop(especially from someone like Obama who claims he wants to unite everyone). Jacking up taxes on the rich isn't gonna improve the economy and help the middle class. Cutting wasteful spending is the key. That's what happened in the 90's. Clinton had a GOP-controlled Congress, and together they kept spending in check. If Obama or Clinton win, they'll have a Democrat-controlled Congress and I shudder to think what they'll be able to get passed this time around. No argument here. The stupid "economic stimulus" package is just the latest example of how liberal he really is.
Is this because they are taking on a greater burden, or because they are making more of the national income? This economic period in the 2000's has primarily been of benefit to the wealthy - so it's not surprising that if their incomes have risen, they would be paying a greater share of the taxes. That also doesn't for the fact that deficit spending leads to higher interest rates as government debt competes with private debt. So the poor/middle-class pays for a lot of that in the form of higher rates on their debt - and the poor/middle-class have more debt compared to income than the wealthy. A comparison of top income earners and their tax burden percentage is ultra-simplistic.
anybody who belives ROXRAN's faux sincerity = owned. link? Proof? Context? Here is the real quote: "We're going to provide tax relief to those making 75,000 dollars or less. The average family will get at least a thousand dollars in tax breaks and a larger mortgage deduction if they don't itemize on their tax returns." Now, you're mistaken or lying for three identifiable reasons: 1. only a disingenous, purposefully misleading interpretation of that statement is "everybody who makes over 75k is rich!" 2. The statement is disjunctive. The average family would get approx. $1000 in tax savings. The average family does not make 75 k - the median per capita in the us is around 45,000 - which would lead to 1000 in tax savings. 3. You're creating an implication that those above 75k will have theirtaxes raised - this is just a flat out lie . in conclusion - you tried and failed to mislead. This is no different than forwarding chain emails that he's an insane muslim secret agent. You might as well stick to that.
you missed yesterday's assertion that the nyt endorsed mccain knowing that they were going to run the lobbyist story as big liberal media plot.
Dude, this has been beaten to death already. The Adjusted Gross Income Share of Top 1% earners actually took a dip after 2000, which where at 20%, it came back again after 2003 and went to 21% at 2005. During that time, the Total Income Tax Shares for the Top 1% took a dip initially during 2001, but went steadily up all the way to 2005 at 40%, which was more than the 37% in 2000 (last Clinton year). So your argument of 2000s benefit the wealthy is false (Top 1% earn 21% of the income, pay 40% of the total tax). The 2000s proly did benefit the ultra rich (billionaires), but that's not what Obama is going after, he will raise taxes on middle to upper middle classes. And are you kidding me on the higher interest rate? Last 7 years, we have seen some historic lows on interest rates. You have no clue on these issues, stop embarrassing yourself. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
And that's the other thing that bugs me about Obama when he talks about taxes. He keeps referring to CEO's who make more in 10 minutes than what an average worker makes in a year. But jacking up taxes on the "wealthy" doesn't just include CEO's and millionaires. The highest tax bracket if I'm not mistaken starts at 78k a year. That's a decent salary, but it ain't CEO money. That's why this class warfare nonsense is so frustrating(as are the people who fall for it hook, line, and sinker). When taxes are raised, it affects a lot more than just insanely wealthy CEO's. Think of the small business owners who are gonna get hit and how that'll affect the economy.
How are you going to pay for the tax relieves? If you let a certain % of people pay less taxes, the rest of us are going have to pick up the missing %. Well, if those people makes 75k+ was responsible for 60% of the total tax burden, now they are responsible for 65%, that's basically a tax raise. And where did he get 75K cut off? You live in NYC, I live in Boston, 75k for a family is boarder line lower middle class.
Good stats breakdown - I hadn't seen the total breakdown before. I'm a little surprised by the dollar figures listed as it doesn't really match what we see in real wage growth and the like. He's looking at raising taxes on people over $250k (or $200k - not sure). That's under 5% of tax returns, according to the stats you provided. That's not the middle class. And frankly, it's Bush that's responsible for that. He could very well have made the tax cuts permanent when he initially proposed them. But in order to make the budget not look like a complete disaster and show that he was on his way to balancing the budget by 2012, he chose to make them expire in 2010 and leave the budget mess to someone else. Historic lows are irrelevent - we're talking relative interest rates. If the government borrows $3 trillion (which is has over the past 8 years), that raises rates - period. It's simple supply and demand. If you had historic lows, then taking that out, you'd have even lower rates. And this is not a short-term issue. This borrowing extends out into the long-term future because of the change in tax structure. That puts upward pressure on interest rates not just now, but well down the road. Beyond that, it takes money out of private sector growth. That $3 trillion that the government had to borrow would otherwise have been invested in the private sector. Assuming you believe in standard GOP economics, that's the exact opposite effect of supply-side economics.
Uhh, there are 3 tax brackets above the bracket containing 78k / year. The highest one starts at $350k. http://www.enterprisefunds.com/education/tax/brackets.asp
My bad. I'd still like to know what Obama's specifics are on raising taxes. Would he only raise the highest bracket's rates from 35% to a larger percentage? Or would his plan also affect those in the 33% range? What about the ones in the 28% range? There's a huge disparity between 77k a year and 160k. Hmm, suddenly Huckabee's fair tax idea don't sound so bad.
Not according to standard Republican math, whereby tax cuts and spending increases pay for themselves - by a process known as supply side economics- (commonly referred to as "MAGIC") But let's table that, and just suppose - that the money to make up for it will come from somewhere far,far,far north of 75k - it has too, because that's where it is. If we are playing a creative game and tossing in people - of course, the poor guy who makes 75,001 will pay nothing more but has a % higher burden. Of course this is exactly what Bush's early tax cuts did - but they did by decreasing the burden on the very top and the bottom - and shifitng it too the middle percentage wise. I didn't hear many conservatives whining then. Are you telling me now that you opposed Bush's first two tax cuts - which had precisely the same effect - and instead pushed the lion's share of benefits onto the rich. Ummmm- probably because this is the exact same cutoff used for the economic stiumulus plan that passed recently, and was signed into law by President Bush - again, were you howling in protest then? But you're right, I agree that a localized adjustment would be better, though I've never heard any politician ever propose that. I wish they would - howver I think it would be defeated, since politicians of smaller states would vote it down because the senate and house give them disproportionate influence.
Ok, so where in Obama's plan does he propose that he will make up the difference from the very very top. Because that's what we are arguing about. He will raise taxes on the top brackets, 200k+ maybe? How is that representative of the very very top. His proposal for fixing the SS is to create a donut hole between the current cap and 200k, again that would amount to a 6.5% tax increase for 200k+ earners, hardly the people you would call at the very top. If you want to argue that those top 0.01% should pay more, them fine, but that is NOT what Obama is proposing. Simple question, currently the top 1% earn 21% of the income, pay 40% of the total tax, do you think they should pay more?
Dude - you're not even talking about Obama's plan here - you're talking about one statement that you are intentionally misleading us with here. The more prescient question is this: where in that statement does he say he's going to increase taxes for those making 75,001, or that they are wealthy? That is what you claimed - it does not seem warrranted. If you actually did look at Obama's plan you wouldn't find anything about this - but you're just throwing meaningless quotes around out of context and tossing unwarranted assumptions into them. Umm - no actually a lot more comes from the elimination of carried interest and other loopholes, you are claiming like a bunch of families of 12 making 200k are going to carry the whole burden. Simply not true. If budgets need to balanced - yes. Wars in Iraq are not free. The top 1% and more specifically, the top half of that 1% has enjoyed unprecedented prosperity due, in large part to the largesse and generosity of the previous administration, allowing them to amass a larger share of national wealth than anybody, at any point, in 100 years. Now it is time to pay the debts of the last administration - who do you think should pay it? The people who made tons of $$$ off of it or those that got the shaft and don't have any money to begin with?
