Voter Fraud In Ohio

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.

Dude neither of the candidates are lying, their plans have to first be approved by Congress. I hope Congress realizes that huge tax cuts from either party won't help. I am expecting a moderate raise in taxes.

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%.

If I made over 250,000 I would, as part of a well-worked out economic policy. Given that we will all be paying taxes, my view is that those with more income can afford to bear a higher percentage of the tax burden, for the reasons I gave above.

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

Not sure what we're supposed to take from this--hasn't the population also increased dramatically during that time as well?

For the record, I am fully in favor of cutting bloated federal programs.

If I made over 250,000 I would, as part of a well-worked out economic policy. Given that we will all be paying taxes, my view is that those with more income can afford to bear a higher percentage of the tax burden, for the reasons I gave above.
They are. I find it interesting you think its OK for them to work 4 months just to pay taxes but admit its not for you. I'm not saying they should not pay taxes but find it strang how people can sit back and say rais their taxes but no not mine.

lets face facts first. the old stand by of trickle down economics no longer works. the reason? corporate greed. it used to be the guys running these companies worked their way up the ladder. now, a degree will get you a high paying management job. and once you fail at that, you will collect your severance, and move on to the next company. there is no loyalty, and no drive to have your company succeed. all the big money is negotiated at the time you sign on. if you look at all the major C.E.O's, they just keep retreading them. kind of like sports coaches

Did trickle down ever work at anything other than making the gap between the rich and poor even greater?

I think no one can dispute that people in general are better off since the 80's, but the rising tide did NOT lift all boats equally. To me that is the concern with trickle-down.

I can, Charlie Brown. Lights, please...

Here's one line of thought:

The overall health of the economy suffers when we have these huge deficits and a ballooning national debt. People are unwilling to cut the defense budget, Social Security, highway funds, head start, homeland security, etc. So we need more revenue. Claim: the middle class is the engine of the economy, so don't tax them--cut their taxes. The poor have no money to tax. So tax the rich. They can most afford to pay (yes, they're angry about it, but they won't lose their homes, healthcare, etc.). Further, doing this in the past has been good for the economy--progressive taxation is better economically then trickledown economics. So it's the right thing to do.

Is it fair to tax one group of citizens more than another? (This, I think, is among the most important differences between conservatives and liberals.) My feeling: yes, if it can be shown that the overall economy gets better, and so a rising tide lifts all boats, even the big rich yachts. Also, it may be that the rich should give something back to help the overall health of the nation where they've done so well (and, BTW, I'd certainly make charitable donations tax deductible up the wazoo).

Worry: excessive taxation is a drag on investment and undermines the motivational energies of the economy. That seems a good worry. Solution: find the progressive tax polices that have the least negative effect on these things. There are lots of ways to do this, but none of them fit in a message board post or a campaign add. So we need leaders who are smart enough to find the right fit here. I thought Clinton's team wasn't bad. I think Obama is more of this stripe than his opponents (and many of his friends) think. I think McCain is open to this (or he was), but since running to the right, he may not be able to get back to this reasonable sort of view. Hence, I prefer Obama on this issue.

If you're against ANY taxation, or any progressive taxation, neither of these candidates is for you. See Bob Barr, maybe?

Okay, there's a lot of points here and Slingin Sammy and firstdown have already responded to many of them... And yes, I'm voting for Bob Barr because John McCain is equally as bad for this economy as Barack Obama is. All of this massive spending on foreign misadventures on top of the ballooning federal budget and national debt must be stopped ASAP.

Let me just say up front that I favor supply side economics -- you and others refer it to as "trickle down".

Have you ever heard the statistic that says something like 7 out of 10 new businesses fail? And that around five of those 7 fail immediately? The point here is that most people don't understand the risk that is involved with starting a new business. Most people don't understand, because most people don't go through with the trouble of starting a business, mainly out of fear. Fear of the risk that goes with it and the money they stand to lose. So the odds are stacked against the people who do take the risk at the outset.

The problem with progressive taxation is that it in effect punishes those who have already passed the incredible hurdle of starting a business and maintaining it to the point that it is profitable. When you stick it to the risk-takers through higher taxation, for no other reason than they have been able to collect more wealth than others who do not take such risks, it inhibits growth, it reduces the incentive for starting new businesses, it takes money away from businesses who might expand, make more capital investments, and hire more employees.

You say that the middle class are the "engine of the economy". Fine. But they are only the engine because businesses, large and small, are there to employ them. If we take your economic philosophy to its logical conclusion, then not only are corporations there to employ people, but the government should act to take money away from the business owners and give it to the workers, i.e. the middle class. Would you agree that if taken too far, that particular tax policy could drive businesses out of business? What would happen if the tax structure got so out of hand that the wealthy business owners said that it was no longer worth it? That there's no reason to continue doing business because the government is taking more of their money and giving it to people who didn't earn it? What if they just walk away?

One more thing about "giving back". I've never liked that expression. It implies that the rich have taken something that doesn't belong to them. That they should "give it back", I suppose through higher taxation. What exactly, have they taken? And if they have achieved their riches through starting a successful business, then the middle class benefits because they have a job thanks to the success of their wealthy employers.

I and other supply siders aren't against all forms of taxation. Obviously we have to maintain the basic functions of government, like police, fire, national defense, that sort of thing. The issue is that the money is taken from high earners by politicians who in turn promise that money to people who didn't earn it in exchange for votes. Vote me in, and I'll make sure the tax structure stays the way it is -- and since there are way more low and middle income voters than high income voters, that politician is sitting pretty.

The only fair way to collect taxes is to get the same amount from everybody. Everybody pays the same percentage. Period. That's the very definition of fairness. Anything else pits class against class, stifles economic growth and if we get right down to it -- it's thievery. Legalized thievery. Taking money from one person simply because he has more of it, and giving it to someone who doesn't have as much.

Did trickle down ever work at anything other than making the gap between the rich and poor even greater?

I think no one can dispute that people in general are better off since the 80's, but the rising tide did NOT lift all boats equally. To me that is the concern with trickle-down.

"Trickle down" economics was never meant to make everyone rich. It's a basic premise which says that government should get out of the way of people who are trying to make life better for themselves.

Rich people don't hide their money in mayonnaise jars and bury it in their back yard. They save it, which enables banks to make loans; they invest it, which provides capital to companies who in turn, use it to expand and hire more of the low and middle class; or they spend it; and yes they buy expensive things like yachts, million dollar homes, fancy cars and luxurious vacations. That, I believe is what makes the low and middle class so angry. But even there, the people who build, market, and sell yachts, million dollar homes, and fancy cars benefit because they have a job!

When you try to nail wealthy people to the wall, sooner or later it will affect the low and middle class. When you stop punishing the wealthy and let them succeed, it ultimately benefits the low and middle class.

That's the essence of 'trickle down' economics.

Okay, there's a lot of points here and Slingin Sammy and firstdown have already responded to many of them... And yes, I'm voting for Bob Barr because John McCain is equally as bad for this economy as Barack Obama is. All of this massive spending on foreign misadventures on top of the ballooning federal budget and national debt must be stopped ASAP.

Let me just say up front that I favor supply side economics -- you and others refer it to as "trickle down".

Have you ever heard the statistic that says something like 7 out of 10 new businesses fail? And that around five of those 7 fail immediately? The point here is that most people don't understand the risk that is involved with starting a new business. Most people don't understand, because most people don't go through with the trouble of starting a business, mainly out of fear. Fear of the risk that goes with it and the money they stand to lose. So the odds are stacked against the people who do take the risk at the outset.

The problem with progressive taxation is that it in effect punishes those who have already passed the incredible hurdle of starting a business and maintaining it to the point that it is profitable. When you stick it to the risk-takers through higher taxation, for no other reason than they have been able to collect more wealth than others who do not take such risks, it inhibits growth, it reduces the incentive for starting new businesses, it takes money away from businesses who might expand, make more capital investments, and hire more employees.

You say that the middle class are the "engine of the economy". Fine. But they are only the engine because businesses, large and small, are there to employ them. If we take your economic philosophy to its logical conclusion, then not only are corporations there to employ people, but the government should act to take money away from the business owners and give it to the workers, i.e. the middle class. Would you agree that if taken too far, that particular tax policy could drive businesses out of business? What would happen if the tax structure got so out of hand that the wealthy business owners said that it was no longer worth it? That there's no reason to continue doing business because the government is taking more of their money and giving it to people who didn't earn it? What if they just walk away?

One more thing about "giving back". I've never liked that expression. It implies that the rich have taken something that doesn't belong to them. That they should "give it back", I suppose through higher taxation. What exactly, have they taken? And if they have achieved their riches through starting a successful business, then the middle class benefits because they have a job thanks to the success of their wealthy employers.

I and other supply siders aren't against all forms of taxation. Obviously we have to maintain the basic functions of government, like police, fire, national defense, that sort of thing. The issue is that the money is taken from high earners by politicians who in turn promise that money to people who didn't earn it in exchange for votes. Vote me in, and I'll make sure the tax structure stays the way it is -- and since there are way more low and middle income voters than high income voters, that politician is sitting pretty.

The only fair way to collect taxes is to get the same amount from everybody. Everybody pays the same percentage. Period. That's the very definition of fairness. Anything else pits class against class, stifles economic growth and if we get right down to it -- it's thievery. Legalized thievery. Taking money from one person simply because he has more of it, and giving it to someone who doesn't have as much.

SORRY this is no place for reason, logic, and fact. That won't work here!
I would like to add; is anyone against cutting the Fed? Would you rather cut the Fed, or raise taxes to aid our Govt. in the further "fleecing" of the American people?
I personally, need less Govt. rather than more. Does anyone need more Govt?