See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Obama's Ill-Timed Tax Increases and Economic Ignorance
Source:
RNC
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNMIwx6bGvs
Published: May 22, 2008
Author: RNC Staff
Post Date: 2008-05-22 20:49:45 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 143
Comments: 9
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Horse (#0)
The nation is on hard times, and the "D"s answer is more sacrafice from the Proles. The sad thing is that this message is popular. I have to admit the "R"s play a good game with the borrow and spend policy as opposed to the "D" tax and spend. It's a no win argument. What's a "D" going to do? Rant about currency devaluation because of excess borrowing and then offer taxation as the answer. Good luck trying that. A 'you're fucked either way' platform will not be that popular. Of course that answer is that FEDGOV needs to cut back, but we all know that's the answer people don't want to hear. The gas tax mess was another good example. Obama flat out said suck it up and pay, you sheep. Hillary's answer was tax the oil companies even more so they can negate the savings by upping the price to make up for the tax. McCain, if I may use the phrase loosely, came out the best by simply ignoring where the lost revenue would be made up.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me. "If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
The amswer is to repeal the Federal Reserve Act.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
Here is the fact. During a recession tax breaks/cuts should be given to those who will spend the money - consumers. Unfortunately, the neocons still play the supply-side tax game which has been proven to be a disaster during weak economic times. bush and the neocons have virtually destroyed our economy and financial position because of their supply-side tax programs. The Reagan years proved that supply-side tax cuts when the economy is weak can substantially damage the economy and undermine a recovery. Economy is weak/recession - give tax cuts to those who will spend them - increase demand which reduces inventories and creates new jobs and substantially helps the tax base. End result - lower unemployment, better wages and lower taxes. Supply-side tax cuts have a negative impact. Economy is strong - supply-side tax cuts will further boost the economy because demand exceeds supply and wealthy investors and business people are looking for another/cheap source of funds to expand their business to meet the excess demand. Creates jobs and helps the tax base. Somebody has to make up for the disasterous neocon financial/economic legislation they pushed through the past 7 years. Might as well be those who benefitted most from it.
There is no need to raise taxes. Abolish the Federal Reserve and its 759 billion dollar a year subsidy. Audit federal government spending and save 200 billion dollars a year. I repeat. There is no reason to raise taxes. I haave given enough money to the rich.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
When I spoke to Goolsbee earlier this year, he said that one of the things that distinguished Obama from Clinton was his skepticism about standard Keynesian prescriptions, such as relying on tax policy to stimulate investment and saving. In a recent posting on HuffingtonPost.com, Cass Sunstein, who for ten years was a colleague of Obama's at the University of Chicago Law School—and has said he is "an informal, occasional adviser to him"—made a similar point regarding government oversight of the financial markets: "With respect to the mortgage crisis, credit cards and the broader debate over credit markets," Sunstein wrote, "Obama rejects heavy-handed regulation and insists above all on disclosure, so that consumers will know exactly what they are getting." Economics: Which Way for Obama? New York Review of Books reviewer John Cassidy seems to think Obama relies on expert economic advisers, but that his economic views are too tame.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Look at the article posted about Bilderberg Luminary picking Obama's VP (and Cabinet?) As I said above, the Bilderbergers and friends are allowed to steal 200 billion dollars from unaudited federal government contracts. SO THERE IS NOW NO REASON FOR ANYONE ON 4UM TO EXPECT OBAMA TO PUT THE VOTERS AHEAD OF THE INTERESTS OF THE BILDERBERGERS. Don't bother me with your pleas that Obama will do great things for me.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
This has nothing to do with Obama. When economy is weak give tax cuts to those who will spend it - working class. Don't give it to the upper class because there is no incentive for them to use it to hire or create jobs. In fact, most of them end up investing it in places (offshore etc) where it does nothing. Give tax cuts to the working class and do away with the bush tax cuts. The bush supply side tax cuts are why we had the one of the weakest recoveries in more than 75 years, why wages have stagnated and the real income has become the worst it has ever been. Worst job recovery and because of the way part time, temporary jobs and underemployment are classified with respect to unemployment the real unemployment rate is closer to 7.5-8%. I'm still amazed that some people still try to claim the Reagan economic policies were a success. Not even close. media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I27480-2004Jun9 When Kennedy took office the unemployment rate was 6.6% & 3.4% when Nixon came into office. When Clinton took office unemployment was 7.4% and 3.9% when he left. The average rate of unemployment from 1961 thru 1968 was 4.8%, under Clinton it was 5.2%. When Reagan took office unemployment was appx 7.5% and when he left it was 5.4%. The average unemployment rate during the Reagan years was 7.1%. In January 1981, when Reagan whined the federal budget was "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation. Productivity statistics: annual average productivity growth rates according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 1950-1963: 3.5%; 1964-1980: 2.2% 1981-1986: 2.1% 1987-1992: 1.7% 1993-2002: 2.1% www.bsherman.org/rushmore.html In 1983, Mr. Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year. The following year, Mr. Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue- neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more. The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.
b. Of course that answer is that FEDGOV needs to cut back, but we all know that's the answer people don't want to hear. a. What's not to love about the idea of higher taxes when you are either: #1. a bleeding heart limousine liberal with zero financial common sense and therefore don't realize that "the rich" = YOU under the Dems' formula of "equalization and fairness" OR #2. you are dependent on gubment hand-outs and you realize that "the rich" = everyone who does not get gubment give-aways OR #3. you are a very very very rich liberal with off-shore accounts who can shelter personal wealth from gubment taxes but you can still talk "the tikkun olam" talk about making America a better place blah, blah at cocktail parties. These are the 3 major supporters of the Dem Party, imo. Group 1 is misguided. Groups 2 and 3 are wise and self-serving. b. Precisely! Cut gubment wasteful spending and there's no need for tax hikes. Tax hikes only encourages MORE wasteful gubment spending.
All the more reason to abolish the Federal Reserve. Nothing will work until we have a non-interest bearing currency. The illlusion of 2 competing political parties keeps the suckers hoping for improvement around the corner after the next election. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul both wanted to abolish the FED.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
#2. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#1)
#3. To: Horse (#0)
#4. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#3)
#5. To: Horse (#0)
Should Obama win the nomination, political considerations may well force upon him a more interventionist position, but his first inclination is to seek a path between big government and laissez-faire, a trait that reflects his age—he was born in 1961—and the intellectual milieu he emerged from. Before entering the Illinois state Senate, he spent ten years teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago, where respect for the free market is a cherished tradition. His senior economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, is a former colleague of his at Chicago and an expert on the economics of high-tech industries. Goolsbee is not a member of the "Chicago School" of Milton Friedman and Gary Becker, but he is not well known as a critic of American capitalism either. As recently as March 2007, he published an article in The New York Times pointing out the virtues of subprime mortgages. "The three decades from 1970 to 2000 witnessed an incredible flowering of new types of home loans," Goolsbee wrote. "These innovations mainly served to give people power to make their own decisions about housing, and they ended up being quite sensible with their newfound access to capital."
#6. To: aristeides, bush_is_a_moonie (#5)
#7. To: Horse (#4)
#8. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#1)
a. The nation is on hard times, and the "D"s answer is more sacrafice from the Proles. The sad thing is that this message is popular.
#9. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#7)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest