Obama '08?

revel wrote:

Yea; right high seas; I would like to see some conservative governor running for re-election on raising taxes because the states have got to come up with the money to pay needed state services which have suffered since the Bush tax cut. A liberal governor couldn't even get away with that.

That is true as long as people are gullible enough to believe the federal taxes are somehow superior to state and local taxes or are happy to remain ignorant re how it all works. So sure, the governors don't really care if it is twice as expensive and more inefficient for the feds to collect the taxes and reallocate to the states. That just helps those governors look really good.

But in the end it is us, the taxpayer, who has to come up with the money, and we have to come up with a whole lot more than would be necessary when the feds collect it just so they can pretend to be giving us something. It is still our money they are "giving" us.

0 Replies

Taxes, shmaxes. Just do what I do if you have a problem with taxes. Don't pay 'em. I never realized how much money I could save until I decided to become a tax evasion engineer in my spare time.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
I guess for me it means that it is far easier to keep govt spending at ALL levels at a reasonable level if each govt entity is staying within its specified realm of jurisdiction.

I see . . . you mean the way Clinton did it, when he produced a surplus--as opposed to the Shrub, who has run up the national debt to historically high levels.

Ya know, if Bill had signed a balanced budget in '93 or '94 when he had a Democratic congress, he would have impressed a whole lota folks, including me, with his fiscal conservatism.

But he didn't.

He was forced into signing a balanced budget by a Republican congress that was elected in Nov '94 and took the reins in Jan '95.

Nowadays, the Clintons want to take full credit, but they actually deserve very little.

Bush inherited an economy sinking toward recession , the NASDAQ had lost 50% of it's value in the final 12 months of the Clinton administration (Jan '00-Jan '01), and Bush also had to finance the military response to 9/11 in the first 12 months of his administration (the Clintons had spent the military hardware down to dangerously low levels during 8 years of neglect ).

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
And spending isn't the only issue.

How 'bout focus?

The President can focus on more national security issues if he doesn't have to micromanage education policy, which is supposed to be a local function.

Oh, i completely agree--that "No Child Left Behind" crapola of the Shrub's is a disaster. Talk about unfunded Federal initiatives.

Yeah, i can see the need to get a competent Democrat in the White House.

Unfortunately, it was Jimmy Peanut who gave us a Federal Dept of Education, wasn't it?

I don't see any of the current crop of Dems that would be willing to cut the Dept of Education completely , do you?

0 Replies

Personally I would rather see this thread discussing the issues as we have been; it is a refreshing change.

As far as Bill Clinton downgrading the military; I don't know he may have. But one thing is for sure despite spending tons of money on the military, troops still had to go without body armor and poor health services when they get hurt in Iraq. But as long as we still have all those weapons; I guess we are sitting pretty nevermind everything else has gone to pot.

0 Replies

Well, it is an Obama thread, so I wonder if any of the Obama supporters think that the constitutional scholar they support will actually move us toward a more limited federal government that focuses on its constitutionally mandated mission and respects its constitutionally mandated limits.

Ahem.

0 Replies

Your entire response is nothing but a strawman.

For one thing there is no constitution mandated mission or mandated limits. If there was; there would be no such thing as amendments. Also; who said Obama was a constitutional scholar?

0 Replies

revel wrote:

who said Obama was a constitutional scholar?

Sorry, you're right.

He said he taught constitutional law.

He didn't say he knew anything about it.

My mistake.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Your entire response is nothing but a strawman.

For one thing there is no constitution mandated mission ...............

Nonsense, Revel. Look it up - Defense, State, Treasury, and Justice are the 4 (four, got that?) departments mandated in the Constitution.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

revel wrote:
who said Obama was a constitutional scholar?

Sorry, you're right.

He said he taught constitutional law.

He didn't say he knew anything about it.

My mistake.

Oh. Well I guess he does know something about it to teach it. Gotta keep up more.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

revel wrote:
who said Obama was a constitutional scholar?

Sorry, you're right.

He said he taught constitutional law.

He didn't say he knew anything about it.

My mistake.

Clinton used to teach Constitutional Law. He also thought the Constitution is identical to the address at Gettysbourg - at least Obama learned from that grotesque mistake.

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

revel wrote:
Your entire response is nothing but a strawman.

For one thing there is no constitution mandated mission ...............

Nonsense, Revel. Look it up - Defense, State, Treasury, and Justice are the 4 (four, got that?) departments mandated in the Constitution.

Yes but a lot would fall into any of those catogories including the second amendment you lot are so fond of throwing out. The second amendment was meant for citizens to be able to be armed to form militias against a government if needed but now it is understood to just bear arms as forming militias would probably be against the law now.

In any case the constitution was meant to be a living constiution as Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Quote:

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

0 Replies

I admit now we are running way off topic. sorry

0 Replies

"New truths" is the key to a living Constitution.

0 Replies

Well let's get back on topic:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/varv04202008a.jpg

0 Replies

We had another thread on taxes, but it's passed from sight. My current belief is that cutting taxes from where we are now will hurt the economy. Taxes seemed to be at the right rate when Clinton left office or after the first Bush tax cut.

Why do I say that? First, a basic assumption: There is an optimum tax rate. At 100% taxes, you have communism and no incentive to produce or innovate. At 0% taxes you have anarchy with no money for the military, infrastructure, policing, education, etc. Somewhere between those extremes is a place where the economy can excel, a place where the government provides a basic structure for success without putting such a drain on the economy that innovation is stifled. Next, refuting a common fallacy: Government spending is not less stimulating to the economy than private spending. If fact, it may be more stimulating since the government tends to spend domestically while selling another thousand flat screen TV's does more for Japan and S. Korea than the US. A much better stimulus program would have been to build bridges than provide everyone with a tax cut since building bridges would have directly employed people and used local materials to make something that could have improved the efficiency of the economy.

Now let's look at our current economy.

- Is there sufficient capital for businesses to grow and thrive? Yes, the stock and capital markets are awash in money. Large companies are sitting on money and venture capital firms are buying entire companies and taking them private. Conclusion: Tax rates are too low.
- Are we maintaining and improving our infrastructure to improve our future competitiveness? No. Planned spending is far below the amount estimated to maintain what we have now, much less grow it. Conclustion: tax rates are too low.
- Are we maintaining our education system? Mixed depending on location, but it is clear that the public college system is showing strains and many states have been reducing funding or not increasing funding to keep up with inflation. Conclusion: Tax rates are too low.

Just from these three points, I would say that we should increase taxes to stimulate the economy. It might not put another chicken in your pot, but it might provide you a job or provide people in your neighborhood jobs so that they can hire you. It might also mean your children can attend college at a reasonable price or that a community college is available in your neighborhood. It could be the new highway that cuts your commute to work in half or the new public transportation route that saves you all that gas.

And back to Obama... if he is for letting the Bush tax cuts expire, more power to him. That is the right thing to do for the economy IMO.

0 Replies

All the evidence previously posted would say you are wrong, Engineer. If Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire my husband and I would take a significant hit and we are nowhere near the upper middle class or even the middle of the middle class. We have the means to weather that, but other small business owners and people nearing retirement might not be able to handle it as well. He simply cannot eliminate those tax cuts without hitting the very people he promises not to hurt.

If you would like to discuss the pros and cons of tax policy in general, however, a good place would be HERE

0 Replies

But Foxy, if these grades of people are not hurt they will continue to wreck the environment, according to scientific opinion I mean, so actually they would be getting better.

A president cannot look at single issues in isolation. He needs to be able to look China in the face when he raises objections to them building two new coal-fired power stations every week and show them that he is doing something to reduce emissions.

Your middle class and upper middle class are simply not going to do it voluntarily.

0 Replies

Perhaps that's the goal, Spendi. We'll meet that 66% reduction in CO2 emissions necessary to stop global warming by making it impossible for people to afford any energy at all. Smile

(George W. Bush will be proud. It is his energy plan.)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

All the evidence previously posted would say you are wrong, Engineer. If Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire my husband and I would take a significant hit and we are nowhere near the upper middle class or even the middle of the middle class. We have the means to weather that, but other small business owners and people nearing retirement might not be able to handle it as well. He simply cannot eliminate those tax cuts without hitting the very people he promises not to hurt.

If you would like to discuss the pros and cons of tax policy in general, however, a good place would be HERE

Tough.They will just have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps like the rest of us who face economic hardships. Somehow I think they will manage.

Maybe they will have to cut back on all the hours they spend posting drool on the internet and actually do something productive.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know