6
   

OBAMA VERSUS MCCAIN: ARGUMENTS FOR WHO IS BETTER FOR MOST AMERICANS

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Mon 13 Oct, 2008 01:34 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
There is no increase in unemployment in actual numbers or in % unemployed. Your statement is false and shown to be false by the numbers you presented.

I wrote:
Quote:
Reagan cut the maximum income tax from Carter's 70% to 28%. Then he increased it to 30%. Then Bush Sr. increased it to 35%. Then Clinton increased it to 39.6%. Clinton's tax increase still resulted in a net reduction of of Carter's 70% tax rate. Clinton inherited his low unemployment rate figures from the net tax rate reduction of Reagan etc, until the last year of his term. Then the unemployment began to increase right into Bush Jr.'s term. Clinton's unemployment increase was reversed by Bush Jr.'s tax decrease.


1998 (1).................... 6,210, 4.5
1999 (1).................... 5,880, 4.2
2000 (1).................... 5,692, 4.0
Bush inaugurated
2001........................ 6,801, 4.7
2002........................ 8,378, 5.8
1st Bush tax cut
2003 (1).................... 8,774, 6.0
2004 (1).................... 8,149, 5.5
2005 (1).................... 7,591, 5.1
2006 (1).................... 7,001, 4.6
Democrats gain control of both houses of Congress

Unemployment decreases or increases do not occur soon after, respectively, tax decreases or tax decreases. Their economic effects develop over significant time.

The effect of Clinton's tax increase started to occur in 2000, but didn't develop fully until 2003. Bush's 1st tax tax cuts beginning in 2002 started to take effect after 2003.

parados
 
  1  
Mon 13 Oct, 2008 02:03 pm
@Foxfyre,
US census - in 2004 about 24.7 million businesses in the US
5.7 million businesses with employees.
http://www.smallbusinessnotes.com/aboutsb/sbfacts/sbnumber.html

IRS - in 2005 about 2.7 million returns had an AGI of 250K or above.
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html#_grp2

It seems the 5 million number is too high. Less than 3 million small business will have their taxes raised if we assume everyone making more than 250K is a business owner.

Quote:
It is impossible to reduce taxes on 95% of Americans when far fewer than that are paying taxes.
Could you provide a quote of Obama saying this? Or are you trying to argue that all Americans qualify as working families? When you want to discuss Obama's plan instead of your strawman version of it, let us know.
parados
 
  1  
Mon 13 Oct, 2008 02:11 pm
@ican711nm,
So let's see.
Clinton had an increase in unemployment even though it didn't occur until 2001 after Bush was in office, then as justification you claim the tax increase from 1993 didn't have any effect until 2001? But the Bush tax cut had an immediate effect. You do lead a rather strange fantasy life.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Mon 13 Oct, 2008 02:44 pm
@parados,
ABC reporter David Wright on Tuesday night, forced to summarize the tax plans of John McCain and Barack Obama in 30 seconds, described them through a distorted liberal prism. Though McCain wishes to continue all the income tax rates from the Bush tax cuts, with no hike or decrease for any income level, Wright asserted: ““He'd make permanent the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.”” No, for all Americans.

Obama, Wright proceeded to report, ““would raise taxes on the wealthy, people who make more than $250,000 a year, but cut them for most households.”” The text on screen, however, stated an impossibility: ““Cut taxes on most households (95%).”” That 95 percent is impossible since one-third of those who file with the IRS are ““non-payers,”” people who end up paying no tax or get money back which exceeds their payments. Obama plans to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and create other credits. For those for whom the credits surpass their tax obligation, those are not tax cuts, but spending hikes or federal giveaways akin to welfare.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/09/16/abc-mccain-would-help-wealthiest-obama-cut-taxes-95

Fact: Obama Cannot Cut Taxes For 95% Of Americans
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/fact_obama_cannot_cut_taxes_for_95_of_americans/

In fairness to Obama is usually qualifies his tax cut plan to be 95% of working Americans; however. . . .



Here is where he includes seniors (non working Americans) in addition to the 95% of working Americans.



And exactly what IS his plan to cut and raise taxes on capital gains?


And if it hurts the economy. . . .?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Tue 14 Oct, 2008 10:21 am
Obama is seeking to achieve his election for president by defrauding the American voting system. If elected he says he will take tax money from some and give it to others. Obama is a thief. He is seeks to steal both an American election and American tax money.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 14 Oct, 2008 10:49 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Obama is seeking to achieve his election for president by defrauding the American voting system. If elected he says he will take tax money from some and give it to others. Obama is a thief. He is seeks to steal both an American election and American tax money.


You sound upset, Ican. How is it you believe Obama is going to 'steal' the election, again?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Tue 14 Oct, 2008 11:31 am
Obama is seeking to achieve his election for president by defrauding the American voting system. If elected he says he will take tax money from some and give it to others. Obama is a thief. He is seeks to steal both an American election and American tax money.

Obama is a chronic liar. He denies he was and is allied with ACORN. ACORN is paying people to register to vote multiple times. He makes speeches that contradict what he said previously and denies that he said what he said previously.

Obama is a dangerous threat to the survival of the American Representative Constitutional Republic. Obama Democrats are a dangerous threat to the survival of the American Representative Constitutional Republic. Obama Democrats in the 21st century are as dangerous to Americans as National Socialists were dangerous to Germans in the 20th century.
Cycloptichorn
 
  -1  
Tue 14 Oct, 2008 11:34 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Obama is seeking to achieve his election for president by defrauding the American voting system. If elected he says he will take tax money from some and give it to others. Obama is a thief. He is seeks to steal both an American election and American tax money.

Obama is a chronic liar. He denies he was and is allied with ACORN. ACORN is paying people to register to vote multiple times. He makes speeches that contradict what he said previously and denies that he said what he said previously.

Obama is a dangerous threat to the survival of the American Representative Constitutional Republic. Obama Democrats are a dangerous threat to the survival of the American Representative Constitutional Republic. Obama Democrats in the 21st century are as dangerous to Americans as National Socialists were dangerous to Germans in the 20th century.



Oh, the Nazi comparison? That didn't take long.

You're a ******* nutbag, Ican't.

But don't worry; you're pretty high on the list of people to exterminate. You won't have to suffer long. See, the Obama death squads are being organized by email right now, and we're just going to murder anyone who doesn't vote for Obama this election.

/you really believe this stupid ****, don't you

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Tue 14 Oct, 2008 02:39 pm
Obama is seeking to achieve his election for president by defrauding the American voting system. If elected he says he will take tax money from some and give it to others. Obama is a thief. He is seeks to steal both an American election and American tax money.

Obama is a chronic liar. He denies he was and is allied with ACORN. ACORN is paying people to register to vote multiple times. He makes speeches that contradict what he said previously and denies that he said what he said previously.

Obama is a dangerous threat to the survival of the American Representative Constitutional Republic. Obama Democrats are a dangerous threat to the survival of the American Representative Constitutional Republic. Obama Democrats in the 21st century are as dangerous to Americans as National Socialists were dangerous to Germans in the 20th century.

I'll say it more simply. Obama is a gangster. If elected he will disassemble our government. He will replace it with a socialist dictatorship. Obama's socialist dictatorship will emulate Hugo Chavez's national socialist Venezuelan government.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Wed 15 Oct, 2008 11:42 am
LET US AGAIN REVIEW WHAT BARACK OBAMA'S ADVOCATES .

He advocates we increase taxes on those best able to create jobs, thereby limiting their job creation capability.

He advocates cutting taxes for the lower 95%, thereby redistributing income tax revenue received from the wealthier to the approximately 30% of that 95% that currently do not pay any income taxes.

He advocates continuing to limit domestic oil drilling (e.g., ANWR) so as to force us to continue to buy mostly foreign oil, while we wait, no one knows how long--assuming our economy lasts that long--to develop adequate supplies of alternate energy.

He advocates we end our counter terrorism support of Iraq before the Iraqis are capable of successfully countering terrorism without our help.

He advocates making large increases in federal charities (i.e., federal entitlements) for people who would actually become independent and self-supporting only if helped directly by private charities.

He advocates an end to secret ballots by potential and actual union members.

He advocates expanding the federal government's violation of the USA Constitution by expanding federal transfers of wealth from the more wealthy to the less wealthy.

Oh yes! He has lied and continues to lie about his relationship and/or partnership with Bill Ayres in promoting the evolutionary replacement of our free enterprise constitutional republic with a socialist command republic
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Wed 15 Oct, 2008 11:54 am
Assume that the last accurate poll of likely voters before the election will be:
Obama = 45%
McCain = 40%
No Opinion = 15%
Total = 100%

How will that 15% No Opinion people vote?

What if they all vote for McCain?

Then:
Obama = 45%
McCain = 55%
No Opinion = 0%
Total = 100%


0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Thu 16 Oct, 2008 12:42 am
Assume that the last accurate tracking poll before the election is similar to the latest CBS/NYT poll and ignores the trends which clearly show Obama gaining support:

Obama 53% MCain 39% undecided 8%.

What if all the undecideds vote for Obama?

Obama 61% McCain 39%
ican711nm
 
  0  
Thu 16 Oct, 2008 11:01 am
@MontereyJack,
OK! Now we have to wait and see who shall be our next president. Will it be Obama , a self disclosed lying socialist and gangster advocating violation of the USA Constitution? Or will it be McCain, a self disclosed lover and defender of America and advocate of obediance to the "supreme law of the land," the USA Constitution.

"It ain't over 'til it's over."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Thu 16 Oct, 2008 11:21 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
So let's see.
Clinton had an increase in unemployment even though it didn't occur until 2001 after Bush was in office

Wrong!

So let's see.
Clinton CAUSED THE increase in unemployment THAT BEGAN TO OCCUR 1 TO 2 YEARS AFTER CLINTON'S TAX INCREASE.

Reagan caused the decrease in unemployment that began to occur 1 to 2 years after Reagan better than halved Carter's 70% maximum tax to 28%. While subsequent increases in maximum taxes to 35%--50% of Carter's maximum tax--occurred before Clinton's additional increase to 39.6%, Clinton's increase subsequently increased unemployment.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Thu 16 Oct, 2008 11:40 am
GEORGE SOROS in his 1995 book, page 145, [I]Soros on Soros[/I], wrote:
I do not accept the rules imposed by others. If I did, I would not be alive today.


Michael Kaufman in his biography of George Soros, page 293, [I]Soros [/I], wrote:
My goal is to become the conscience of the world


GEORGE SOROS in his 2004 book, page 159, [I]The Bubble of American Supremacy[/I], wrote:
The principles of the Declaration of Independence are not self-evident truths but arrangements necessitated by our inherently imperfect understanding.


Sam Hananel in his associated Press article, December 10, 2004, wrote:
On December 9, 2004, Eli Pariser, who headed Soros's group Moveon PAC, boasted to his members, "Now the Democratic Party is our party. We bought it, we own it."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Thu 16 Oct, 2008 12:22 pm
Quote:
The Declaration of Independence
(Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776)
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America
...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

GEORGE SOROS in his 2004 book, page 159, [I]The Bubble of American Supremacy[/I], wrote:
The principles of the Declaration of Independence are not self-evident truths but arrangements necessitated by our inherently imperfect understanding.

The George Soros gang owns the Democratic Party and is financially supporting the Barack Obama gang.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Thu 16 Oct, 2008 01:13 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:
So let's see.
Clinton had an increase in unemployment even though it didn't occur until 2001 after Bush was in office

Wrong!

So let's see.
Clinton CAUSED THE increase in unemployment THAT BEGAN TO OCCUR 1 TO 2 YEARS AFTER CLINTON'S TAX INCREASE.

Which unemployment increase? Clinton's plan was passed in 1993.
Unemployment
1993........................ 8,940, 6.9
1994 (1).................... 7,996, 6.1
1995........................ 7,404, 5.6
1996........................ 7,236, 5.4
1997 (1).................... 6,739, 4.9
1998 (1).................... 6,210, 4.5
1999 (1).................... 5,880, 4.2

2000 (1).................... 5,692, 4.0
2001........................ 6,801, 4.7
2002........................ 8,378, 5.8
There is no increase in unemployment until 2001 according to your numbers.

You do like to show how much of an idiot you are though, I'll give you that.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Thu 16 Oct, 2008 03:08 pm
@parados,
Parados, I was wrong. You are right about when Clinton increased the top income tax rate. He did indeed do that in 1993. I confused that year with the year, 1997, the year Clinton decreased income tax rates. However, my point that tax revenues began to decrease near the end of Clinton's term and into Bush's term before any subsequent changes in the tax code were made is correct. Also, my point that unemployment began to increase near the end of Clinton's term into Bush's term before any subsequent changes in the tax code were made by Bush, is correct.

Quote:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html
History of the Income Tax in the United States
Source: Tax Foundation.
The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history"more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.

In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections"to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.

In 1981, Congress enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, approximately $750 billion over six years. The tax reduction, however, was partially offset by two tax acts, in 1982 and 1984, that attempted to raise approximately $265 billion.

On Oct. 22, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the Tax Reform Act of 1986, one of the most far-reaching reforms of the United States tax system since the adoption of the income tax. The top tax rate on individual income was lowered from 50% to 28%, the lowest it had been since 1916. Tax preferences were eliminated to make up most of the revenue. In an attempt to remain revenue neutral, the act called for a $120 billion increase in business taxation and a corresponding decrease in individual taxation over a five-year period.

Following what seemed to be a yearly tradition of new tax acts that began in 1986, the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 was signed into law on Nov. 5, 1990. As with the '87, '88, and '89 acts, the 1990 act, while providing a number of substantive provisions, was small in comparison with the 1986 act. The emphasis of the 1990 act was increased taxes on the wealthy.

On Aug. 10, 1993, President Clinton signed the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993 into law. The act's purpose was to reduce by approximately $496 billion the federal deficit that would otherwise accumulate in fiscal years 1994 through 1998. In 1997, Clinton signed another tax act. The act, which cut taxes by $152 billion, included a cut in capital-gains tax for individuals, a $500 per child tax credit, and tax incentives for education.

President George W. Bush signed a series of tax cuts into law. The largest was the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. It was estimated to save taxpayers $1.3 trillion over ten years, making it the third largest tax cut since World War II. The Bush tax cut created a new lowest rate, 10% for the first several thousand dollars earned. It also established a slow schedule of incremental tax cuts that would eventually double the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, adjust brackets so that middle-income couples owed the same tax as comparable singles, cut the top four tax rates (28% to 25%; 31% to 28%; 36% to 33%; and 39.6% to 35%).

The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 accelerated the tax rate cuts that had been enacted in 2001, and temporarily reduced the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 15%. In 2004, the U.S. was forced to eliminate a corporate tax provision that had been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization. Along with that tax hike, Congress passed a cornucopia of tax breaks, which for individuals included an option to deduct the payment of whichever state taxes were higher, sales or income taxes.

Two tax bills signed in 2005 and 2006 extended through 2010 the favorable rates on capital gains and dividends that had been enacted in 2003, raised the exemption levels for the Alternative Minimum Tax, and enacted new tax incentives designed to persuade individuals to save more for retirement.



ican711nm
 
  1  
Thu 16 Oct, 2008 03:25 pm
@ican711nm,
ANOTHER CORRECTION

1998 (1).................... 6,210, 4.5
1999 (1).................... 5,880, 4.2
2000 (1).................... 5,692, 4.0
Bush inaugurated
2001........................ 6,801, 4.7
1st Bush tax cut
2002........................ 8,378, 5.8
2003 (1).................... 8,774, 6.0
2004 (1).................... 8,149, 5.5
2005 (1).................... 7,591, 5.1
2006 (1).................... 7,001, 4.6
Democrats gain control of both houses of Congress

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Thu 16 Oct, 2008 08:51 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
Parados, I was wrong. You are right about when Clinton increased the top income tax rate. He did indeed do that in 1993. I confused that year with the year, 1997, the year Clinton decreased income tax rates.


So then, a few years after taxes were decreased there was an increase in unemployment. It kind of undermines your argument, don't you think?
 

Related Topics

Criminals For Gun Control - Discussion by cjhsa
Team Oinkbama reading Mein Kampf.... - Discussion by gungasnake
Messiahs: Jesus vs Oinkbama - Discussion by gungasnake
The case for poured pyramids - Discussion by gungasnake
Get thee behind me, Satan - Discussion by Letty
Increase the wages and wage not a war - Discussion by Ramafuchs
Zionism and the Third Reich - Discussion by Zippo
Divorce - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/13/2024 at 09:41:21