Voter Fraud In Ohio

I thought it was funny the Republicans didn't do their homework on good old Joe before making him the poster child of the last debate.
Joe himself doesn't matter, his point does.....But why did it take the GOP this long to make the argument. Obama hasn't hidden the fact he'll raise taxes on those making over $ 250K. McCain and his spin doctors should've been hammering the "wealth redistribution" angle since before the first debate.

There's the problem, bloated government programs. They take on a life of their own. Many need to be cut back.

Reagan couldn't do it in '81. W and co most certainly didn't do it, even with a repub congress. Clinton managed to cut a fair bit off Federal welfare. But neither party has shown the stomach for real change. I'm fine with gov't playing a role, but it must be done with some intelligence. And some restraint! The issue here is that the repubs had there shot--what did it get us? Smaller gov't? Better economy? Improved health care? Improved education? Talk is cheap. Maybe Obama won't be able to do anything. But he's worth a shot because the other side messed up.

This is a very debatable point many economists disagree with. Also, we've always had some form of progressive taxation since the inception on the income tax. But at what point is the "progression" too much? I would argue when the top 1% of income earners are paying 34% of the Federal tax burden and the next 2-10% are paying the next 33% than it's too much. The bottom 50% are only paying a total of 3% of the tax burden.

Ah, the dismal science. The historical analysis I saw recently suggested otherwise, but no doubt it's debatable, as is everything in economics. Why do you think 34/33 is too much? What is the right amount? In any event, if we are going to pay for the programs we want, we need to tax. The bottom 50% has experienced stagnating and sinking wages in relation to inflation. Plus, they can least afford to pay, because the loss of income directly effects basic stuff like mortgage payments, health care, food, gas, etc. So raise the rate to 39 (back to the Clinton number). And if I'm right about the debatable economic point (the post war boom? the Clinton years?), it's better overall. I'm not sure how McCain's further ballooning of the debt is going to help--we can only borrow so much from China.


Why? What government programs or government advantages have they received? What government services do they use more than anyone else? Answer: probably none. (I'm not talking the top 1%, I can't speak to how they got where they are, but the 2-10% have mostly gotten there by their own hard work and financial risk taking.)

You are taking a too narrow view of the benefits. It's not simply a matter of direct gov't assistance (protectionism and corporate welfare--but that's for another post), it's a matter of the benefits of living in a free and open society like this one. That it exists and allowed them the opportunity to succeed as much as they have. The top 10% have benefited from that. So they can reasonably be asked to bear a greater share of the load of supporting this system. Isn't this the rationale for progressive taxation? If you are ok with progressive taxation in general, we're only disagreeing about the numbers here. I think 39 (i.e. back to Clinton's numbers) makes sense.

Joe himself doesn't matter, his point does.....But why did it take the GOP this long to make the argument. Obama hasn't hidden the fact he'll raise taxes on those making over $ 250K. McCain and his spin doctors should've been hammering the "wealth redistribution" angle since before the first debate.

My conservative father-in-law has been making this point for months.

I think the McCain folks recognize that it's not going to play in hard-hit economic areas. Plus, it was Bush's line, so it's been a tad discredited. What is McCain's positive policy here? Is it just Bush, or is it something different? If it's just Bush, it's electoral poison. If it's something different, how is it different in principle from Obama? My feeling is McCain's recent economic stuff looks more socialist than Obama's. That's why the right wasn't into his "buy and re-negotiate the bad mortgages" thing. And I agree with them on this one!

Reagan couldn't do it in '81. W and co most certainly didn't do it, even with a repub congress. Clinton managed to cut a fair bit off Federal welfare. But neither party has shown the stomach for real change. I'm fine with gov't playing a role, but it must be done with some intelligence. And some restraint! The issue here is that the repubs had there shot--what did it get us? Smaller gov't? Better economy? Improved health care? Improved education? Talk is cheap. Maybe Obama won't be able to do anything. But he's worth a shot because the other side messed up. Obama has proposed at least several hundred billion in new programs and is promising a tax increase already. My money is on government will expand greatly and taxes rise to levels above the Clinton years if Obama wins and the dems gain a supermajority. Gov't expansion and tax increase happened both times before when the dems had it.

Why do you think 34/33 is too much? What is the right amount? In any event, if we are going to pay for the programs we want, we need to tax. The bottom 50% has experienced stagnating and sinking wages in relation to inflation. Plus, they can least afford to pay, because the loss of income directly effects basic stuff like mortgage payments, health care, food, gas, etc. So raise the rate to 39 (back to the Clinton number). And if I'm right about the debatable economic point (the post war boom? the Clinton years?), it's better overall. I'm not sure how McCain's further ballooning of the debt is going to help--we can only borrow so much from China.I think the top 10% of the wage earners paying 2/3 of the taxes in the country is very unfair. The top 10% can't out vote the other 90% so there's no incentive to cut any programs, or increase taxes on a larger section of the population, just keep taxing the "rich". When the bottom 90% feel no pain, or even get tax cuts, where is the incentive to control gov't? BTW $ 250K / yr. isn't rich, it's upper middle class, but not rich.

Look at it this way; you work a full-time job as an attorney, dentist, sales professional or you own a couple of small stores or restaurants. You job it 60 hours + per week to hopefully over time become independently wealthy. You live below your means and make smart financial decsions. You take your income from $ 250K to $ 350K with no help from anyone or the government, just hard work and the investments you made in your own education or financial risks you took. So of the $ 100K over $ 250K you made, you keep only $ 61K of, not to mention state and local taxes, at the end of the day you've busted your hind quarters and only take home about $ 55K. Is that fair for the Fed to take more than most people earn in a year in taxes on just the $ 100K to support people who haven't made the sacrifices you do?

You are taking a too narrow view of the benefits. It's not simply a matter of direct gov't assistance (protectionism and corporate welfare--but that's for another post), it's a matter of the benefits of living in a free and open society like this one. That it exists and allowed them the opportunity to succeed as much as they have. The top 10% have benefited from that. So they can reasonably be asked to bear a greater share of the load of supporting this system. Isn't this the rationale for progressive taxation? If you are ok with progressive taxation in general, we're only disagreeing about the numbers here. I think 39 (i.e. back to Clinton's numbers) makes sense.I'm not talking about CEOs who are making mega-bucks here. Those guys do have corporate lobbyists and get benfits for themselves and the corporations they work for from folks in the government, on both sides of the aisle.

I'm talking about the guys/gals I mentioned in the paragraph above. What additional benefit of a "free & open society" do they get that the other 90% of wage earners don't get? It is not reasonable based on that to, not ASK but DEMAND, they pay higher and higher percentages of their income. The IRS doesn't "ask" for your tax payment. I understand progressive taxation is necessary, but it's too high at 35% and certainly is at 39%.

The only way to control government expansion is to slow down the funding and force cuts in programs and more frugal expenditures of OUR money.

Pretty scary stuff here. We've got to put the brakes on spending and revamp SS, Medicare, Medicaid now.

United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt)

Again, I agree that we should cut bloated gov't spending. But I don't think McCain will be able to do anything serious--so we're just going to get a continuation of the Bush debt spending. Is that good policy? My guess is Obama will end up raising middle class taxes at some point. And I am not against that, so long as it's part of balancing the budget.

And I'm still not sure where you'd set the tax rates if we drop them across the board. If you want to keep defense strong, and you want to pay even for a "revamped" SS, medicare, etc. the monies have to come from somewhere. Past progressive tax rates have been much higher on the top tier, and the economy did well (See the Eisenhower years, e.g.). 39 is not too much of a burden. And there ought to be ways to deduct for charitable contributions--rather than sending your money to the gov't, send it to the charity of your choice. That would help the nation as well.

I reiterate that I think the issue of fair taxation policy if the #1 divide between libs and conservatives. Doubt we'll ever agree, but it sure beats talking about all the red herring stuff in this campaign!

it sure beats talking about all the red herring stuff in this campaign!
We definitely agree here. :food-smil

Again, I agree that we should cut bloated gov't spending. But I don't think McCain will be able to do anything serious--so we're just going to get a continuation of the Bush debt spending. Is that good policy? My guess is Obama will end up raising middle class taxes at some point. And I am not against that, so long as it's part of balancing the budget.

And I'm still not sure where you'd set the tax rates if we drop them across the board. If you want to keep defense strong, and you want to pay even for a "revamped" SS, medicare, etc. the monies have to come from somewhere. Past progressive tax rates have been much higher on the top tier, and the economy did well (See the Eisenhower years, e.g.). 39 is not too much of a burden. And there ought to be ways to deduct for charitable contributions--rather than sending your money to the gov't, send it to the charity of your choice. That would help the nation as well.

I reiterate that I think the issue of fair taxation policy if the #1 divide between libs and conservatives. Doubt we'll ever agree, but it sure beats talking about all the red herring stuff in this campaign!
Well if you think 39% taxation is not all that high I guess your sending the goverment a check each year so your paying 39%.

with the massive deficit we now face, any ideas on how to start paying on it? or is now the republican way to spend, spend, and spend some more, and let our grand-kids worry about it? lets face facts. no matter who gets into office, out taxes are going up. that's just a fact. i guess the real debate is who will raise them more

with the massive deficit we now face, any ideas on how to start paying on it? or is now the republican way to spend, spend, and spend some more, and let our grand-kids worry about it? lets face facts. no matter who gets into office, out taxes are going up. that's just a fact. i guess the real debate is who will raise them more

So I guess your saying Obama's economic plan is not very good and he is lying to 95% of Americans or is he planning on lowering our taxes then turning around and raising them.

Well federal tax revenue is at a all time high.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/PDF/R2.pdf