If one turned on the television this weekend at all, one was bombarded with Obama's tax plan ads every commercial break. Kinda of cute endorsement at the end, "I'm Barack Obama, Candidate for America, and I approved this message."

The Wall Street Journal explains Obama's transfer of wealth scheme.

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

It's bad enough a large majority of folks enjoy the benefits of our society without contributing anything, other than breathing. It really sucks they now not only don't have to pay anything toward their upkeep, we now have to pay them for the privilege of being leeches off the productive in our society.

Obama's 95% Illusion - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html)

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of American and the Socialist nation for which it stands, one nation, under whatever supreme being you believe in or none, completely divided, with constraints on all liberties except the ones the Democrats like.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of American and the Socialist nation for which it stands, one nation, under whatever supreme being you believe in or none, completely divided, with constraints on all liberties except the ones the Democrats like.

One could argue that the Bush administration exhibits some "facist" tendencies but we'll leave that for another time.

Back to the WSJ article which is, BTW, an opinion piece.

First we need to establish what most people do with money.

They spend it.

As a matter of fact, most low to middle income Americans probably spend more than they make.

Where does the money go that people spend?

To business... And then business uses that money to hire people, buy stuff, pay health insurance... I'm guessin' you get the picture.

Rich people, on the other hand, may have more money than they need to live on so they invest in stocks, lobby the government, hire accountants to figure out how they can pay less in taxes, buy seven houses and all kind of other rich dude and dudess stuff.

In the end, most people spend a good chunk of their money... Which helps the economy.

So the real question here is... Which is better... Money trickling down or money trickling up?

I guess that depends on your financial outlook and compassion for your fellow man.

Oh, yeah... How many poor people are going to be taking advantage of the clean car credit?

Or... Who benefits the most from the 10% mortgage credit?

One could argue that the Bush administration exhibits some "facist" tendencies but we'll leave that for another time.

Back to the WSJ article which is, BTW, an opinion piece.

First we need to establish what most people do with money.

They spend it.

As a matter of fact, most low to middle income Americans probably spend more than they make.

Where does the money go that people spend?

To business... And then business uses that money to hire people, buy stuff, pay health insurance... I'm guessin' you get the picture.

Rich people, on the other hand, may have more money than they need to live on so they invest in stocks, lobby the government, hire accountants to figure out how they can pay less in taxes, buy seven houses and all kind of other rich dude and dudess stuff.

In the end, most people spend a good chunk of their money... Which helps the economy.

So the real question here is... Which is better... Money trickling down or money trickling up?

I guess that depends on your financial outlook and compassion for your fellow man.

Oh, yeah... How many poor people are going to be taking advantage of the clean car credit?

Or... Who benefits the most from the 10% mortgage credit?
Typical liberal failure to understand economics.

Money ALWAYS trickles down. ALWAYS. The only way it does not is through socialist redistribution of wealth programs like those proposed by Obama.

Lets put this straight. Obama's and McCain's economic and tax programs are wrong and unconstitutional. Period.

It does not matter which one wins, the citizens of the United States lose.

Money ALWAYS trickles down. ALWAYS. The only way it does not is through socialist redistribution of wealth programs like those proposed by Obama.

Explain how your statement applies to government workers.

Explain how your statement applies to government workers.

Flag on the play! Ref calls deflection. 15 yard penalty, first down.
Ed

Flag on the play! Ref calls deflection. 15 yard penalty, first down.
Ed

:lol: good call, ref.

Flag on the play! Ref calls deflection. 15 yard penalty, first down.
Ed

Ah, Come on ref... He pulled my face guard! :lmao:

I could have used a more devious play... Like the old "economic stimulus check".

Or the diabolical flea market vendor. Now there's money tricklin' sideways, down, up...

One could argue that the Bush administration exhibits some "facist" tendencies but we'll leave that for another time.

Back to the WSJ article which is, BTW, an opinion piece.

First we need to establish what most people do with money.

They spend it.

As a matter of fact, most low to middle income Americans probably spend more than they make.

Where does the money go that people spend?

To business... And then business uses that money to hire people, buy stuff, pay health insurance... I'm guessin' you get the picture.

Rich people, on the other hand, may have more money than they need to live on so they invest in stocks, lobby the government, hire accountants to figure out how they can pay less in taxes, buy seven houses and all kind of other rich dude and dudess stuff.

In the end, most people spend a good chunk of their money... Which helps the economy.

So the real question here is... Which is better... Money trickling down or money trickling up?

I guess that depends on your financial outlook and compassion for your fellow man.

Oh, yeah... How many poor people are going to be taking advantage of the clean car credit?

Or... Who benefits the most from the 10% mortgage credit?


Looks to me like the money is trickled downward, from those that pay taxes to those that don't, and then redistributed partially back to legitimate businesses.

Your statement regarding folks who have more money than they need to live, who determines that? The all-knowing government? I'm tired of the class warfare. You're trying to use the compassion argument for why the government should penalize the productive to reward the unproductive.

You're looking for equal outcomes when the constitution only guarantees an equal playing field.

And just how is Obama planning on paying for all this? After he allows Bush's tax rate cuts to expire (the first tax increase on all Americans), he will then raise taxes again, on all of us. Everyone who uses gasoline will pay more. Everyone who uses heating oil will pay more. The oil companies sure as heck aren't going to cut their bottom line absorbing the cost of Obama's socialist programs. And the poor saps will get their Demogrant checks every spring, buy a new plasma TV and wonder why they don't have money for food. Great central planning by the government. :sarcasm:

Looks to me like the money is trickled downward, from those that pay taxes to those that don't, and then redistributed partially back to legitimate businesses.

Your statement regarding folks who have more money than they need to live, who determines that? The all-knowing government? I'm tired of the class warfare. You're trying to use the compassion argument for why the government should penalize the productive to reward the unproductive.

You're looking for equal outcomes when the constitution only guarantees an equal playing field.

And just how is Obama planning on paying for all this? After he allows Bush's tax rate cuts to expire (the first tax increase on all Americans), he will then raise taxes again, on all of us. Everyone who uses gasoline will pay more. Everyone who uses heating oil will pay more. The oil companies sure as heck aren't going to cut their bottom line absorbing the cost of Obama's socialist programs. And the poor saps will get their Demogrant checks every spring, buy a new plasma TV and wonder why they don't have money for food. Great central planning by the government. :sarcasm:

Let's take a step up the the money chain...

In FY2007, the US Defense Dept. spent $315,531,728,761 of the taxpayers money on defense contracts.

The Top Ten Defense Contractors were:
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION $27,265,727,092
THE BOEING COMPANY $22,138,194,910
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION $15,832,221,313
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION $13,557,064,867
RAYTHEON COMPANY $10,861,253,903
BAE SYSTEMS PLC $9,336,555,556
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION $5,277,376,501
KBR, INC. $4,861,411,621
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC. $4,519,691,001
SAIC, INC. $3,421,091,027
Source (http://www.usaspending.gov/fpds/fpds.php?datype=T&detail=-1&database=fpds&fiscal_year=2007&maj_agency_cat=97)


So, ALL of the taxpayers (Not just the rich ones) trickled down on private industry... Who then trickled down...

Let's take a step up the the money chain...

In FY2007, the US Defense Dept. spent $315,531,728,761 of the taxpayers money on defense contracts.

The Top Ten Defense Contractors were:
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION $27,265,727,092
THE BOEING COMPANY $22,138,194,910
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION $15,832,221,313
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION $13,557,064,867
RAYTHEON COMPANY $10,861,253,903
BAE SYSTEMS PLC $9,336,555,556
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION $5,277,376,501
KBR, INC. $4,861,411,621
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC. $4,519,691,001
SAIC, INC. $3,421,091,027
Source (http://www.usaspending.gov/fpds/fpds.php?datype=T&detail=-1&database=fpds&fiscal_year=2007&maj_agency_cat=97)


So, ALL of the taxpayers (Not just the rich ones) trickled down on private industry... Who then trickled down...

The entire 2008 defense budget was 4.4% GDP. Compare with mandated entitlement social programs at 8.7% GDP.

One little burr under the saddle, however. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending has absorbed ever higher portions of the federal budget since the 1960s. In general terms, this growth has come at the expense of the defense budget. This trend cannot continue indefinitely. Indeed, the United States is facing a fiscal crisis because spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is projected to increase rapidly. Each of these three programs is forecast to grow faster than the overall economy between 2005 and 2030.

The implications for national defense are clear. Spending 4 percent of GDP for national defense will quickly become impossible unless Congress reforms Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Given the size of the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs, reforming them will take time. Thus, Congress should start now.
Some Members of Congress will argue that any reform of these programs is tantamount to a draco#nian cut. It is nothing of the sort. None of the cur#rent entitlement reform proposals would cut spending on these programs; they would only limit future growth.


I don't remembers Obama's exact policy regarding the Defense budget but I believe in theory it was similar to Jimmah's.


Defense FY 2008 Budget Analysis: Four Percent for Freedom (http://www.heritage.org/research/Budget/bg2012.cfm)


Small businesses employ roughly half of the nations workers. Obama's socialist economic plans are devastating to small business owners. If one can't afford to even keep pace with current number of employees, somebody has to lose their job. Generally that is the lowest skilled employee who probably will have the hardest time finding another job.

I'd recommend that that laid off person go seek someone receiving a Demogrant check to give them a job.

Glenn BEck explained his tax cut.. its not a tax cut, nobody will see more money.. BUT on the books it will look like BILLIONS in less taxes collected.. HOW you ask?

Obama is going to change the name of welfare checks to "Tax Credits.

SO if Americans pay (for example) 300B in taxes, then we pay out 150B in welfare (ooops, TAX CREDITS), in our new accounting system we've only paid 150B in taxes, or netted a 150B tax cut.

SO, even though EVERYBODY's taxes will go up, and EVERYBODY will pay more every year, subtracting the "Tax Credits" will make it look like he's cut our taxes substantially.

Carbon Credits, Tax Credits.. Got to hand to them, once they find something that works they stick with it.

Obama's socialist economic plans are devastating to small business owners. If one can't afford to even keep pace with current number of employees, somebody has to lose their job. Generally that is the lowest skilled employee who probably will have the hardest time finding another job.

I'd recommend that that laid off person go seek someone receiving a Demogrant check to give them a job.

This is pure BS.
As I've previously stated, I have been a small businessman for 30 years. It is not Obama who is putting small business out of business... It's the effects of 12 years of Republican control of Congress (1995-2007) and almost 8 years of Bush policies.
Even before the housing market crash the value of pay checks was falling. Effects? Look at retail Christmas receipts for the last few years.
We began to let people a year ago due to falling sales. Health insurance premiums are killing small business. Tight credit is strangling small business.

Before you profess to know what's killing small business maybe you should walk the walk.

The US Misery Index by President
1948 to 2007
Misery Index = Unemployment rate + Inflation rate

President/ Time Period/ Average Misery Index

Jimmy Carter/ 1977 - 1980/ 16.27
Gerald Ford/ 1974 - 1976/ 15.93
Ronald Reagan/ 1981 - 1988/ 12.19
George H.W. Bush/ 1989 - 1992/ 10.68
Richard Nixon/ 1969 - 1973/ 9.98
George W. Bush/ 2001 - 2007/ 7.89
Harry Truman/ 1948 - 1952/ 7.87
William J. Clinton/ 1993 - 2000/ 7.80
John F. Kennedy/ 1961 - 1962/ 7.27
Lyndon Johnson/ 1963 - 1968/ 6.78
Dwight Eisenhower/ 1953 - 1960/ 6.26

As of Aug. 2008: 11.47%

Tell me how an increase the federal minimum wage is going to impact your small business then get back to us.

This is pure BS.
As I've previously stated, I have been a small businessman for 30 years. It is not Obama who is putting small business out of business... It's the effects of 12 years of Republican control of Congress (1995-2007) and almost 8 years of Bush policies.
Even before the housing market crash the value of pay checks was falling. Effects? Look at retail Christmas receipts for the last few years.
We began to let people a year ago due to falling sales. Health insurance premiums are killing small business. Tight credit is strangling small business.

Before you profess to know what's killing small business maybe you should walk the walk.

The US Misery Index by President
1948 to 2007
Misery Index = Unemployment rate + Inflation rate

President/ Time Period/ Average Misery Index

Jimmy Carter/ 1977 - 1980/ 16.27
Gerald Ford/ 1974 - 1976/ 15.93
Ronald Reagan/ 1981 - 1988/ 12.19
George H.W. Bush/ 1989 - 1992/ 10.68
Richard Nixon/ 1969 - 1973/ 9.98
George W. Bush/ 2001 - 2007/ 7.89
Harry Truman/ 1948 - 1952/ 7.87
William J. Clinton/ 1993 - 2000/ 7.80
John F. Kennedy/ 1961 - 1962/ 7.27
Lyndon Johnson/ 1963 - 1968/ 6.78
Dwight Eisenhower/ 1953 - 1960/ 6.26

As of Aug. 2008: 11.47%

Resorting to the fallacious 'chickenhawk' argument? You obviously don't know me. I did have a consulting business for over five years. I now work part-time for one of my largest clients. Your 30 years experience doesn't give you the corner on your opinion, which facts show is incorrect. I find it amusing you use the misery index, championed by Jimmah when he was campaigning (yes, I'm old enough to remember). Bit him in the azz, didn't it?

Who created the tight credit crunch? Barney Freak and Chris Dude. A financial institution can't be forced to make risky loans and hope to stay viable. Social engineering of economic policy doesn't work, hence the fall of the Soviet Union or the wonderful social utopia of Cuba.

Locally, as in Maryland, things started going in the tank when MOM was elected, followed by wholesale election of Democrats to local positions. Taxes for all went up last July. Local government is so inept they've purchased two albatrosses and mismanaged government so badly the public transportation system needs a bailout.

One doesn't need a crystal ball to predict what will happen nationally when Democrats control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Just look at Maryland. Socking it to everyone to pay for the fiscal suckhole called Baltimore. At this rate Maryland will become a third rate state like Delaware or Illinois.

Here's a good analysis of Obama's tax plan on small business. Posted to educate those business owners who sell used books they obviously don't read.

Obama Tax Plan

Hoover Style Effects on Investors and Small Business


According to The Bulletin: Philadelphia's Family Newspaper, in an article written by Herbert Denenberg on October 9, 2008, "One of the ways Hoover helped us into the Great Depression is that he followed the same Obama plan for tough economic times." Denenberg writes that Sen. Obama proposes tax increases for investors and the wealthy, the same group that provides employment for workers.

Obama's Tax Proposals

Increases in marginal tax rates hurts the economy, says Peter Ferrara writing in Human Events on October 6, 2008. The Tax Policy Center estimates that Obama's tax plan would raise taxes by $627 billion over 10 years.

Obama proposes:
To Increase the top individual income tax rate by 13% and the second individual income tax rate by 10%.
To Increase the capital gains tax rate by 33%.
To increase the tax rate on dividends by 33%.
To raise the top payroll tax rate by between 16%-32%.
New payroll tax on employers to help pay for national health insurance.
Reinstatement of the death tax, which is being phased out under current law, with a new top marginal tax rate of 45%.
Protectionist trade policies and higher tariff taxes.Obama's Tax Credit Plan

According to the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121910303529751345.html?mod=most_emailed_day) (WSJ),(Aug. 19, 2008) Obama proposes a raft of tax credits that taxpayers can receive if they engage in various government-specific activities. Moreover, the tax credits would go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. If a tax credit is $1,000. but otherwise the taxpayers would only pay $200 in taxes, the government would give them a check for $800. If taxpayers pay no income tax, they would receive a check for $1000. WSJ asks if this is just government spending disguised as tax credits.


Productive citizens, such as small business, would make up the difference in more taxes. The effect on capital gains, which would discourage investment, would rise by one-third. Social security payroll taxes would be raised between 16% and 32% for families making over $250,000.



Obama Tax Plan: Hoover Style Effects on Investors and Small Business (http://us-elections.suite101.com/article.cfm/obama_tax_plan)

P.S. One of the Charles County Democrat Committee members is a small business owner. He owns a real estate firm. He's sure proud of the way Barney Freaks and Chris Dude screwed up the housing market. :sarcasm:

First we need to establish what most people do with money.

They spend it.As a matter of fact, most low to middle income Americans probably spend more than they make. And, this is wise why?

Where does the money go that people spend?

To business... And then business uses that money to hire people, buy stuff, pay health insurance... I'm guessin' you get the picture.
Rich people, on the other hand, may have more money than they need to live on so they invest in stocks, lobby the government, hire accountants to figure out how they can pay less in taxes, buy seven houses and all kind of other rich dude and dudess stuff.So, who builds those houses? Who gains when the businesses have money invested in them? Are accountants like "American people with jobs"? How about lobbiests?

Do you think Jane buying a cheeseburger at McDonald's stimulates the economy more, or Warren Buffet buying Goldman?In the end, most people spend a good chunk of their money... Which helps the economy.

So the real question here is... Which is better... Money trickling down or money trickling up?You can't funnel money into a business that's not there, but you can trickle money down from that business to employees that exist because successful people start the business. So, down is better.I guess that depends on your financial outlook and compassion for your fellow man.Or, your intelligence level :rolleyes:

This is pure BS.
As I've previously stated, I have been a small businessman for 30 years. It is not Obama who is putting small business out of business... It's the effects of 12 years of Republican control of Congress (1995-2007) and almost 8 years of Bush policies.
Even before the housing market crash the value of pay checks was falling. Effects? Look at retail Christmas receipts for the last few years.
We began to let people a year ago due to falling sales. Health insurance premiums are killing small business. Tight credit is strangling small business.

Before you profess to know what's killing small business maybe you should walk the walk.

The US Misery Index by President
1948 to 2007
Misery Index = Unemployment rate + Inflation rate

President/ Time Period/ Average Misery Index

Jimmy Carter/ 1977 - 1980/ 16.27
Gerald Ford/ 1974 - 1976/ 15.93
Ronald Reagan/ 1981 - 1988/ 12.19
George H.W. Bush/ 1989 - 1992/ 10.68
Richard Nixon/ 1969 - 1973/ 9.98
George W. Bush/ 2001 - 2007/ 7.89
Harry Truman/ 1948 - 1952/ 7.87
William J. Clinton/ 1993 - 2000/ 7.80
John F. Kennedy/ 1961 - 1962/ 7.27
Lyndon Johnson/ 1963 - 1968/ 6.78
Dwight Eisenhower/ 1953 - 1960/ 6.26

As of Aug. 2008: 11.47%

Why don't you pull out your sword and carve a "Z" on my chest?

In a series of episodes, Quick Draw would also assume the identity of the masked vigilante (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante) "El Kabong" (a parody of Zorro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorro)). As El Kabong, Quick Draw would attack his foes by swooping down on a rope with the onomatopoeiac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopoeia) war cry "KABOOOOOONG!", or, at times, "OLAYYYYEEEE!" and hitting them on the head with an acoustic guitar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel-string_guitar) which is always referred to as a "kabonger", producing a distinctive kabong sound and usually destroying the guitar in the process.

El Kabong - a cartoon character of the Mexican version of Robin Hood, economic policies that rob the rich to give to the poor. Classic!

Quick Draw McGraw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quick_Draw_McGraw)

El Kabong - a cartoon character of the Mexican version of Robin Hood, economic policies that rob the rich to give to the poor. Classic!


You didn't know the reference the moment you saw that? I had a college buddy who called himself "El Kabong" and he made that sound when he let off a zinger.

This is pure BS.
As I've previously stated, I have been a small businessman for 30 years. It is not Obama who is putting small business out of business... It's the effects of 12 years of Republican control of Congress (1995-2007) and almost 8 years of Bush policies.
Even before the housing market crash the value of pay checks was falling. Effects? Look at retail Christmas receipts for the last few years.
We began to let people a year ago due to falling sales. Health insurance premiums are killing small business. Tight credit is strangling small business.

Before you profess to know what's killing small business maybe you should walk the walk.

The US Misery Index by President
1948 to 2007
Misery Index = Unemployment rate + Inflation rate

President/ Time Period/ Average Misery Index

Jimmy Carter/ 1977 - 1980/ 16.27
Gerald Ford/ 1974 - 1976/ 15.93
Ronald Reagan/ 1981 - 1988/ 12.19
George H.W. Bush/ 1989 - 1992/ 10.68
Richard Nixon/ 1969 - 1973/ 9.98
George W. Bush/ 2001 - 2007/ 7.89
Harry Truman/ 1948 - 1952/ 7.87
William J. Clinton/ 1993 - 2000/ 7.80
John F. Kennedy/ 1961 - 1962/ 7.27
Lyndon Johnson/ 1963 - 1968/ 6.78
Dwight Eisenhower/ 1953 - 1960/ 6.26

As of Aug. 2008: 11.47%

If health insurance premiums are killing small businesses how do you propose to stay in business when Obama requires your business to pay premiums for all employees.

You didn't know the reference the moment you saw that? I had a college buddy who called himself "El Kabong" and he made that sound when he let off a zinger.

I knew about the sound from when I was a kid. I was pointing out the irony of the Zorro reference and how the class warfare warriors try to picture themselves as heroic saviors of the 'little people".

Tell me how an increase the federal minimum wage is going to impact your small business then get back to us.

Who pays minimum wage? A warehouse worker can make $10 an hour or more... Our starting salaries have been above minimum wage for years.

Here's a good analysis of Obama's tax plan on small business. Posted to educate those business owners who sell used books they obviously don't read.

Obama Tax Plan

Hoover Style Effects on Investors and Small Business


According to The Bulletin: Philadelphia's Family Newspaper, in an article written by Herbert Denenberg on October 9, 2008, "One of the ways Hoover helped us into the Great Depression is that he followed the same Obama plan for tough economic times." Denenberg writes that Sen. Obama proposes tax increases for investors and the wealthy, the same group that provides employment for workers.

Obama's Tax Proposals

Increases in marginal tax rates hurts the economy, says Peter Ferrara writing in Human Events on October 6, 2008. The Tax Policy Center estimates that Obama's tax plan would raise taxes by $627 billion over 10 years.

Obama proposes:
To Increase the top individual income tax rate by 13% and the second individual income tax rate by 10%.
To Increase the capital gains tax rate by 33%.
To increase the tax rate on dividends by 33%.
To raise the top payroll tax rate by between 16%-32%.
New payroll tax on employers to help pay for national health insurance.
Reinstatement of the death tax, which is being phased out under current law, with a new top marginal tax rate of 45%.
Protectionist trade policies and higher tariff taxes.Obama's Tax Credit Plan

According to the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121910303529751345.html?mod=most_emailed_day) (WSJ),(Aug. 19, 2008) Obama proposes a raft of tax credits that taxpayers can receive if they engage in various government-specific activities. Moreover, the tax credits would go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. If a tax credit is $1,000. but otherwise the taxpayers would only pay $200 in taxes, the government would give them a check for $800. If taxpayers pay no income tax, they would receive a check for $1000. WSJ asks if this is just government spending disguised as tax credits.


Productive citizens, such as small business, would make up the difference in more taxes. The effect on capital gains, which would discourage investment, would rise by one-third. Social security payroll taxes would be raised between 16% and 32% for families making over $250,000.



Obama Tax Plan: Hoover Style Effects on Investors and Small Business (http://us-elections.suite101.com/article.cfm/obama_tax_plan)

P.S. One of the Charles County Democrat Committee members is a small business owner. He owns a real estate firm. He's sure proud of the way Barney Freaks and Chris Dude screwed up the housing market. :sarcasm:

Your choice of quotes may be telling.

Herbert Denenberg detests Obama and has written scathing articles about him. A quote:
Let me introduce you to the many faces of Sen. Barack Obama. There is Barack "Neville Chamberlain" Obama; Barack "Herbert Hoover" Obama; Barack "Jimmy Carter" Obama, and Barack "Storm Trooper" Obama. There are many more; they are ever changing; and they seem to be unguided by any core values but controlled only by political expediency. Source (http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=20157187&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8)
Unbiased? I don't think so.

Then we have Peter Ferrara...
Peter Joseph Ferrara heads the Social Security Project of the Free Enterprise Fund, which supports the Bush administration's effort to privatize Social Security.
...Peter Ferrara, a "senior policy adviser" at the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation, admitted that he "took money" from Jack Abramoff "to write op-ed pieces boosting the lobbyist's clients. 'I do that all the time,' Ferrara [said]. 'I've done that in the past, and I'll do it in the future'," Eamon Javers reported December 16, 2005, in Business Week. Ferrara said "he doesn't see a conflict of interest in taking undisclosed money to write op-ed pieces because his columns never violated his ideological principles." Source (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peter_J._Ferrara)


I usually suspect bias when when people start using statements like:
"To Increase the capital gains tax rate by 33%."
(Remember the argument the MD state sales tax would rise by 20%... Which, in fact, equaled one penny on the dollar.

From the Obama Tax Plan:
Capital Gains: Families with incomes below $250,000 will continue to pay the capital gains rates that they pay today. For those in the top two income tax brackets – likewise adjusted to affect only families over $250,000 – Obama will create a new top capital gains rate of 20 percent. Obama’s 20% rate is equal is the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate that President Bush proposed in 2001. It is almost a third lower than the rate that President Reagan signed into law in 1986.

Dividends: The top dividends rate for people making over $250,000 would be set at 20 percent.
Dividends will not return to being taxed at ordinary income tax rates. Obama’s 20 percent rate on dividends will be 39 percent lower than the rate President Bush proposed in 2001, and would be lower than all but 5 of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends.

Estate Tax: The estate tax would be effectively repealed for 99.7 percent of estates. For the remaining 0.3% of estates over $7 million per couple, Obama will retain a rate of 45%. This policy
would cut the number of estates covered by the tax by 84 percent relative to 2000.

Average Tax Rates Below the 1990s: Overall, the top 1 percent of households – people with an average income of $1.6 million per year – would see their average federal income and payroll tax rate increase from 21 percent today to 24 percent, less than the 25 percent these households would have paid under the tax laws of the late 1990s.
Source (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf)

Americans under the Republican/Bush economic polices:

-On a national level, the unemployment rate is on the rise, hitting 5.7% in July, which is just where it was in late 2001. But the jobless numbers usually climb for months, if not years, after a recession ends. It took until June 2003 for unemployment to hit its peak at 6.3% the last time.

- Nationally, Americans' income has not kept pace with inflation since the last recession ended. In fact, workers' median weekly earnings slipped to $723, down 1.2% from $732 since the end of 2001, in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to Jared Bernstein, senior economist with the Economic Policy Institute.
...This stagnation is becoming ever more painful as the price of basic goods such as food and fuel soars. Inflation hit a 17-year high of 5.6% in July.

- The crumbling housing market is at the root of much of America's current economic instability. Some homeowners, particularly those who bought in the past three years, are seeing steep drops in the value of their properties. Nearly 30% of people who bought homes in the past five years owe more than the house is worth, according to Zillow, a real estate Web site. At the same time, many are facing jumps in their mortgage payments as their rates reset.

Anyone in this situation, obviously, is feeling the pain. But overall, Americans' homes are still worth more than they were in 2001. Home prices nationwide are now where they were at the end of 2004, according to Zillow, even though they are down 13.3% from their peak in the second quarter of 2006.

- The total net worth of U.S. households now stands at $56 trillion, up 40% from $40.6 trillion in 2001. (As of Aug. 25, 2008.)

- People are now shelling out 14.1% of their disposable income to cover their debt payments, up from 13.4% in 2001.

Consumers are also having a tougher time keeping up with the debts. They have fallen behind on 4.61% of their outstanding debts, up from 3.18% in 2001, according to data from Equifax and Moody's Economy.com. This is primarily due to a surge in mortgage delinquencies, though late payments on credit card are on the rise, as well.

-Regardless of what the economic statistics show, Americans are certainly gloomier than they were at the end of the last recession.

The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index now stands at 51.9%, down from 84.9% in November 2001. The unease encompasses both their own situations and the nation's. Respondents are more concerned about finding jobs and think business conditions will worsen in coming months.
Source CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/25/news/economy/better_off/index.htm?postversion=2008082515)

And you're trying to convince us "Republicans will do better this time."?

Again... I ask a simple question: "Who is more inclined to spend the tax money they recieve from the government, the rich or the middle class?"

It is the spending of money that simulates the economy and creates jobs.

Your choice of quotes may be telling.

Herbert Denenberg detests Obama and has written scathing articles about him. A quote:

Unbiased? I don't think so.

Definitely biased, as is anyone who disagrees with Obama's policies. Again, where is he incorrect?

Then we have Peter Ferrara...


I usually suspect bias when when people start using statements like:
"To Increase the capital gains tax rate by 33%."
(Remember the argument the MD state sales tax would rise by 20%... Which, in fact, equaled one penny on the dollar.

So 20% is incorrect or you just don't like the way it's presented?

From the Obama Tax Plan:


Americans under the Republican/Bush economic polices:

-On a national level, the unemployment rate is on the rise, hitting 5.7% in July, which is just where it was in late 2001. But the jobless numbers usually climb for months, if not years, after a recession ends. It took until June 2003 for unemployment to hit its peak at 6.3% the last time.

In other words, traditionally unemployment has gotten worse therefore, as the numbers aren't that bad (especially in comparison to the French economic model) we can expect it to get worse.

- Nationally, Americans' income has not kept pace with inflation since the last recession ended. In fact, workers' median weekly earnings slipped to $723, down 1.2% from $732 since the end of 2001, in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to Jared Bernstein, senior economist with the Economic Policy Institute.
...This stagnation is becoming ever more painful as the price of basic goods such as food and fuel soars. Inflation hit a 17-year high of 5.6% in July.

- The crumbling housing market is at the root of much of America's current economic instability. Some homeowners, particularly those who bought in the past three years, are seeing steep drops in the value of their properties. Nearly 30% of people who bought homes in the past five years owe more than the house is worth, according to Zillow, a real estate Web site. At the same time, many are facing jumps in their mortgage payments as their rates reset.

Anyone in this situation, obviously, is feeling the pain. But overall, Americans' homes are still worth more than they were in 2001. Home prices nationwide are now where they were at the end of 2004, according to Zillow, even though they are down 13.3% from their peak in the second quarter of 2006.

Are you thanking Barney Freak & Chris Dude yet? Certainly can't pin this one on Bush or McCain now, can we?

- The total net worth of U.S. households now stands at $56 trillion, up 40% from $40.6 trillion in 2001. (As of Aug. 25, 2008.)

- People are now shelling out 14.1% of their disposable income to cover their debt payments, up from 13.4% in 2001.

Consumers are also having a tougher time keeping up with the debts. They have fallen behind on 4.61% of their outstanding debts, up from 3.18% in 2001, according to data from Equifax and Moody's Economy.com. This is primarily due to a surge in mortgage delinquencies, though late payments on credit card are on the rise, as well.

-Regardless of what the economic statistics show, Americans are certainly gloomier than they were at the end of the last recession.

The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index now stands at 51.9%, down from 84.9% in November 2001. The unease encompasses both their own situations and the nation's. Respondents are more concerned about finding jobs and think business conditions will worsen in coming months.
Source CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/25/news/economy/better_off/index.htm?postversion=2008082515)

And you're trying to convince us "Republicans will do better this time."?

Again... I ask a simple question: "Who is more inclined to spend the tax money they recieve from the government, the rich or the middle class?"

It is the spending of money that simulates the economy and creates jobs.

And a simple answer - the middle class, as the rich don't receive tax money from the government. Your statement of spending of money that stimulates (I hope that's what you meant) the economy and creates jobs is only partially correct. The rich don't just spend money, they do something the poor folks can't do, no matter how much money they spend. They invest their money. And no, I don't mean investment as the socialists use that code word for 'taxation'. Those investments hopefully bring a return that makes the investment worthwhile. It also puts money into circulation from the top down in our economy. Unless these folks start getting taxed to death and invest their money elsewhere outside the U.S.

When will the socialists ever learn? MOM raised taxes through the roof on cigarettes, for example. Great idea! Wonderful policy. And his new budget, constructed in secret, being leaked slowly to the press, is about as flawed.

Tax policy isn't about raising necessary revenue, it's about social control. Buy this car, you get a tax credit, invest in carbon offset credits, we'll give you a tax credit, donate to my political campaign and I'll effect tax policy to benefit you.

- Nationally, Americans' income has not kept pace with inflation since the last recession ended.

Again... I ask a simple question: "Who is more inclined to spend the tax money they recieve from the government, the rich or the middle class?"

1. The economy is growing, slowly, but stil growing so we aren't in a recession.
2. That's a stupid question. I'm not rich and I have NEVER EVER recieved tax money from the government.
The ONLY people that recieve tax money without at least appearing to earn it are the poor, old and sick.

1. The economy is growing, slowly, but stil growing so we aren't in a recession.
2. That's a stupid question. I'm not rich and I have NEVER EVER recieved tax money from the government.
The ONLY people that recieve tax money without at least appearing to earn it are the poor, old and sick.

Actually, the folks receiving tax refunds are getting back their own money. The folks receiving tax credit payments are getting not government money but money from productive taxpayers.

Class warfare is a staple issue for socialists every election cycle.

I guess Zorro was overwhelmed by facts again.

I guess Zorro was overwhelmed by facts again.

I fancy myself more of the Swamp Fox type.

(Thanks for the spelling correction!)

I fancy myself more of the Swamp Fox type.

(Thanks for the spelling correction!)

Ironic, your policy beliefs are more in line with those of the 'little bottle', Deng Xiaoping.