Jump to content

Election Night 2008

editor

By editor
in National Politics

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 196
  • Created
  • Last Reply
dbigtex56

dbigtex56

Posted
Posted
His proposal is not really a proposal to increase taxes, but a proposal to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. To jerry rig the budget numbers, Bush's tax cuts were not made permanent. They are set to expire in 2010 or 2011. The tax rates would then return to the Clinto tax rates enacted in 1993.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budge...ion_Act_of_1993

The net result of allowing the cuts to expire, of course, is that the top tax rate increases to 39.6%. That's it. There are also proposals to extend the Bush tax cuts on incomes below $250,000, and some other credits.

I certainly hope that the top tax rate does not return to 39.6% -that's far too low.

Those who claim that higher tax rates for the extremely wealthy is some sort of liberal, modern, socialist idea should take a look at History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates (Source: National Taxpayers Union and National Taxpayers Union Foundation)

Notice that between 1917 and 1987, the top tax bracket paid a rate of 46% or higher (with the exception of years 1925-1931, which immediate preceeded....anyone?....anyone? The Great Depression.) In fact, in 1944-45 the rate was a whopping 94%! Of course, things were much different then...we had gone into billions of dollars in debt to fund a war. <_<

In the 1950s and 1960s - a period which is regarded as one of great prosperity for Americans - the lowest top bracket rate was 70%!

The very, very wealthy have reaped the benefits of living in America, but since the 1980's have forced the middle class and poor to pay for protecting their investments.

I trust Obama to do the right thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N Judah

N Judah

Posted
Posted
Dancing with the stars? Or maybe a Fox show like "The View" with Ann Coulter and Michelle Maulkin. "The View from Hell". Seriously though, I think there are enough hard core Repubs that will encourage her to run in 2012.

Kucinich/Palin 2012! I'd vote for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
crunchtastic

crunchtastic

Posted
Posted
This Chief of Staff pick doesn't seem like much of a "Change" to me. Yawn. So is he trying to be like Bill Clinton, or is this some kind of Chicagoland machine politics thing?

I guess the bigger question is how will Obama use his chief of staff. Bush needed an evil mastermind like Rove because he was, well, not very bright.

I see Obama's CoS as part consigliere, part Alfed the Butler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
west20th

west20th

Posted
Posted
I guess the bigger question is how will Obama use his chief of staff. Bush needed an evil mastermind like Rove because he was, well, not very bright.

I see Obama's CoS as part consigliere, part Alfed the Butler.

Karl Rove was a Bush advisor. Andy Card was his COS. Consigliere is a good job description though. Remember it was Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales that tried to make John Ashcroft an "offer he couldn't refuse" concerning signing off on the domestic spying bill while he was lying delirious in his hospital bed. Suprised they didn't slip a horses head under his sheets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedScare

RedScare

Posted
Posted
Karl Rove was a Bush advisor. Andy Card was his COS. Consigliere is a good job description though. Remember it was Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales that tried to make John Ashcroft an "offer he couldn't refuse" concerning signing off on the domestic spying bill while he was lying delirious in his hospital bed.

But, they brought flowers...and a 'Get Well Soon!' card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N Judah

N Judah

Posted
Posted
Dennis does like 'em tall and pretty. Must be short man syndrome. I believe he is on his third almost 6' and extremely pretty wife.

Good for him, but I meant as a running mate. He is short but McCain is short too and nobody brought up the height thing then. Point is: I don't see Palin as the traditional Republican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trae

Trae

Posted
Posted
I never accused you of voting for him based on race. Re-read.

I hope you aren't accusing me. I've had enough of people keep asking me if I "even know what Obama stands for". Some. Assume because I'm Black, that that's the only reason why I voted for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
longcat

longcat

Posted
Posted
If you're referring to the Bush tax cuts for the extremely wealthy, that's exactly my point.

Actually, the Bush tax cuts made the federal income tax MORE progressive when you look at it in terms of % of the revenue collected by income level. The reason why so much of the cut (in absolute $) went to the top brackets is that the lower brackets actually pay very little ($-wise). Thus, Obama's policy to 'cut' taxes on the poor by giving them a tax credit results in paying them directly.

Also, the 39.6% top rate discussed earlier is not the 'top proposed rate' under Obama, as he has proposed a 2-4% social security tax increase on those making over $250k. Also, lots of deductions phase out the higher your income level, thus resulting in a higher marginal top tax rate than the nominal 39.6%. You gotta love the stealth taxes (the 1/2 of social security that your employer pays on your behalf is another good one there.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
editor

editor

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Those who claim that higher tax rates for the extremely wealthy is some sort of liberal, modern, socialist idea should take a look at History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates (Source: National Taxpayers Union and National Taxpayers Union Foundation)

Notice that between 1917 and 1987, the top tax bracket paid a rate of 46% or higher (with the exception of years 1925-1931, which immediate preceeded....anyone?....anyone? The Great Depression.) In fact, in 1944-45 the rate was a whopping 94%! Of course, things were much different then...we had gone into billions of dollars in debt to fund a war. <_<

Very interesting link. But you left out an important part -- the definition of "top bracket" changes from year to year.

For example, according to your link in 1941 the top bracket paid 81%. But at that time the top bracket was $5 million+

By the 80's and 90's "top bracket" no longer meant $5 million+, it meant $30-$80k.

So the "rich" who were being taxed the most were making $36,000/year. Even in the 80's $36k wasn't "rich" to anyone other than a politician trying to spend someone else's money.

Please correct me if I'm reading the chart wrong.

Kucinich/Palin 2012! I'd vote for that.

Only if you mean Elizabeth Kucinich/Palin 2012. In that case, sign me up!

is this some kind of Chicagoland machine politics thing?

*Ding!* *Ding!* *Ding!* *Ding!* *Ding!* *Ding!* *Ding!*

We have a winner!

It's all just part of the process of Obama paying back favors to people who helped him get where he is today. Not that it's any different than any other administration before him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeebus

Jeebus

Posted
Posted
I hope you aren't accusing me. I've had enough of people keep asking me if I "even know what Obama stands for". Some. Assume because I'm Black, that that's the only reason why I voted for him.

Hardly. Redscare dragged you into the conversation:

Not me. I voted for the White half. Trae probably voted for the Black half, though.

I simply used you as a comparison to the level of his party loyalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark F. Barnes

Mark F. Barnes

Posted
Posted
Very interesting link. But you left out an important part -- the definition of "top bracket" changes from year to year.

For example, according to your link in 1941 the top bracket paid 81%. But at that time the top bracket was $5 million+

By the 80's and 90's "top bracket" no longer meant $5 million+, it meant $30-$80k.

So the "rich" who were being taxed the most were making $36,000/year. Even in the 80's $36k wasn't "rich" to anyone other than a politician trying to spend someone else's money.

Please correct me if I'm reading the chart wrong.

Only if you mean Elizabeth Kucinich/Palin 2012. In that case, sign me up!

*Ding!* *Ding!* *Ding!* *Ding!* *Ding!* *Ding!* *Ding!*

We have a winner!

It's all just part of the process of Obama paying back favors to people who helped him get where he is today. Not that it's any different than any other administration before him.

Here's some more interesting reading from Tex's site:

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=97

The more you dig around on that site the better it gets, instead of Cherry Picking for partials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dbigtex56

dbigtex56

Posted
Posted
Very interesting link. But you left out an important part -- the definition of "top bracket" changes from year to year.

For example, according to your link in 1941 the top bracket paid 81%. But at that time the top bracket was $5 million+

By the 80's and 90's "top bracket" no longer meant $5 million+, it meant $30-$80k.

So the "rich" who were being taxed the most were making $36,000/year. Even in the 80's $36k wasn't "rich" to anyone other than a politician trying to spend someone else's money.

Please correct me if I'm reading the chart wrong.

That was my understanding as well, and you bring up a very good question.

How did we allow the richest .1% - people who are paid tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year - to be lumped in with the middle-middle class? It's absurd.

Edit: Please note that the tax cuts given just prior to the Great Depression (1925-1931) also lowered the top bracket minimum from $500k to $100k. When the higher rate was reenstated in 1932, it jumped back up to $1m. From 1936-1941 the highest bracket went all the way up to $5m. During WWII it went all the way down to $200k again.

In other words, in times of national crisis, the extremely wealthy have had to shoulder a higher tax burden. The health and security of the nation depended on it. Wars cannot be fought or economies rebuilt without money.

These are the very circumstances in which we currently find ourselves. It's time again to have a realistic tax for the super rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeebus

Jeebus

Posted
Posted
In other words, in times of national crisis, the extremely wealthy have had to shoulder a higher tax burden. The health and security of the nation depended on it. Wars cannot be fought or economies rebuilt without money.

These are the very circumstances in which we currently find ourselves. It's time again to have a realistic tax for the super rich.

I've never seen a groups so desperate to take other peoples money. We are not in a national crisis - at least not yet. There is no burden for the super rich to hold - especially if Obama ends the war in Iraq as he plans.

Not unless you want the rich to bail out EVERYONE and EVERY BUSINESS, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dbigtex56

dbigtex56

Posted
Posted
I've never seen a groups so desperate to take other peoples money. We are not in a national crisis - at least not yet. There is no burden for the super rich to hold - especially if Obama ends the war in Iraq as he plans.

Not unless you want the rich to bail out EVERYONE and EVERY BUSINESS, period.

It'd be kinda nice if they bailed out their own banks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MetroMogul

MetroMogul

Posted
Posted

*Sigh*

Native America - My people were cheated, herded like cattle and exterminated due to "Manifest Destiny." Somehow, we managed to overcome.

African-American - My people were taken from their homeland and forced to work in bondage and even after we were "freed" we reminded that we second class citizens, barely human, and we deserved no rights. Yet, we managed to overcome.

Mexican American - My people came here for a better way of life, nearly drowning in the Rio Grande and dying in the desert. The rich were glad to exploit us and at the same time hate us for being there to exploit. Nevertheless, we have managed to overcome.

Republican-American - MY people have to pay more in taxes so some "baby mama" can get her welfare check and "gum'mint" cheese 'cause her baby daddy ran out on her for some rims and bling. What if I wanna someday buy Hewlett-Packard instead of just scrub floors there?! I won't be able to do it because of Comrade HUSSEIN'S tax plan! Spread the wealth huh? I spit on your tax break BO Hussein! This country is doomed! My boss will never be able to overcome a moderate tax increase!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeebus

Jeebus

Posted
Posted
Damn, Fort Bend County almost went blue. Click Texas: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

I'm actually surprised that it didn't go to Obama. Fort Bend has become a very ethnically diverse county.

It'd be kinda nice if they bailed out their own banks.

That's up to ALL the shareholders - not just a few wealthy CEOs.

And, if you want to dredge up that old argument, we can always go down the path of why the banks need a bail-out. And you can't blame Bush for that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...