Obama-nomics- increase 15% Capital gains to 28%

[HAL 9000 96]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html

So... top 1% of earners on VJ... damn impressive!

That is sooooooooooo evil of him!

[kaydee457 13]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html

So... top 1% of earners on VJ... damn impressive!

That is sooooooooooo evil of him!

Scaling back capital gains impacts 100% of earners. Please view the linked video before commenting. It's clear to me that you haven't.

Anyone that has a home, or has a 401k is impacted by this lefist socialist agenda proposed by both Democrats.

This is hardly new news for the liberals are well known to believe themselves to be annointed by the almighty and thereby possessing superior intellect that allows them to spend everyone elses money the way they, the liberal elitists, think it should be spent.

This almost always means redistribution of wealth.......

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why should passive income be taxed at a lower rate than earned income?

Why shouldn't it? The money does not belong to the government, it belongs to the people. The idea that every single cent that changes hands should have a cut to the government is terrible. A person takes a risk and makes money. The government shouldn't have it's hand out every time someone makes a buck.

You're rambling about taxes in general but you're not actually answering the question.

My answer? I think the entire tax code should be scrapped. Money made on investments shouldn't be taxed at all. A tax on consumption should be the governments only way of taxing us. If not that then a flat tax at the same rate for everyone. This idea of progressive taxes and taxing the rich more than anyone else stinks.

With the current tax code and rates, we're taxing the rich less than those that work for their money. That is what stinks.

The fact is that the "rich" pay 70% of the taxes now.

While they control better than 90% of the wealth. If the tax code was equitable, they'd be on the hook for 90% of the taxes.

The fact is that the rich have effectively written the tax code and it certainly benefits them. Warren Buffet pays a smaller effective tax rate than his secretary. He thinks that's unfair and wrong. And so do I.

[HAL 9000 96]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html

So... top 1% of earners on VJ... damn impressive!

That is sooooooooooo evil of him!

Scaling back capital gains impacts 100% of earners. Please view the linked video before commenting. It's clear to me that you haven't.

Anyone that has a home, or has a 401k is impacted by this lefist socialist agenda proposed by both Democrats.

This is hardly new news for the liberals are well known to believe themselves to be annointed by the almighty and thereby possessing superior intellect that allows them to spend everyone elses money the way they, the liberal elitists, think it should be spent.

This almost always means redistribution of wealth.......

And its nearly clear you never mentioned to notice that the video is a discussion between whom? Certainly its not Obama's official stance but rather others' interpretations. Interesting. So, before putting your foot in your mouth once again it would be wiser to have at least the minimal facts correct on what Obama is preaching and what your cold war mentality wants to hear. Just an objective suggestion. So lets stop being petty and move on to actual issues.

For our collective record here, my tax rate actually increased under Republican-led taxation, notwithstanding having gross income virtually identical pre-Bush. So, that must mean by your broad and irrational labeling that Bush is also a liberal taxing leftist socialist whatever else you want to call it.

And I always thought people that had homes now were reeling from laissez-faire financial strategies that occur precisely because everyone wants to think of themselves before what is capable of being held by the market economy.

It is not wise thinking of individual circumstances as a template for what we and others whom think like us as an attack platform just so we can swiftboat our least favorite politician. It is also quite hypocritical to whine about social ills in this country and not want to contribute to their elimination the only way the government can.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html

So... top 1% of earners on VJ... damn impressive!

That is sooooooooooo evil of him!

Scaling back capital gains impacts 100% of earners. Please view the linked video before commenting. It's clear to me that you haven't.

Anyone that has a home, or has a 401k is impacted by this lefist socialist agenda proposed by both Democrats.

This is hardly new news for the liberals are well known to believe themselves to be annointed by the almighty and thereby possessing superior intellect that allows them to spend everyone elses money the way they, the liberal elitists, think it should be spent.

This almost always means redistribution of wealth.......

And its nearly clear you never mentioned to notice that the video is a discussion between whom? Certainly its not Obama's official stance but rather others' interpretations. Interesting. So, before putting your foot in your mouth once again it would be wiser to have at least the minimal facts correct on what Obama is preaching and what your cold war mentality wants to hear. Just an objective suggestion. So lets stop being petty and move on to actual issues.

For our collective record here, my tax rate actually increased under Republican-led taxation, notwithstanding having gross income virtually identical pre-Bush. So, that must mean by your broad and irrational labeling that Bush is also a liberal taxing leftist socialist whatever else you want to call it.

And I always thought people that had homes now were reeling from laissez-faire financial strategies that occur precisely because everyone wants to think of themselves before what is capable of being held by the market economy.

It is not wise thinking of individual circumstances as a template for what we and others whom think like us as an attack platform just so we can swiftboat our least favorite politician. It is also quite hypocritical to whine about social ills in this country and not want to contribute to their elimination the only way the government can.

Word.

[LuzyC 0]

....

Edited March 30, 2008 by LuzyC

[GaryC 7]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html

So... top 1% of earners on VJ... damn impressive!

That is sooooooooooo evil of him!

Scaling back capital gains impacts 100% of earners. Please view the linked video before commenting. It's clear to me that you haven't.

Anyone that has a home, or has a 401k is impacted by this lefist socialist agenda proposed by both Democrats.

This is hardly new news for the liberals are well known to believe themselves to be annointed by the almighty and thereby possessing superior intellect that allows them to spend everyone elses money the way they, the liberal elitists, think it should be spent.

This almost always means redistribution of wealth.......

And its nearly clear you never mentioned to notice that the video is a discussion between whom? Certainly its not Obama's official stance but rather others' interpretations. Interesting. So, before putting your foot in your mouth once again it would be wiser to have at least the minimal facts correct on what Obama is preaching and what your cold war mentality wants to hear. Just an objective suggestion. So lets stop being petty and move on to actual issues.

For our collective record here, my tax rate actually increased under Republican-led taxation, notwithstanding having gross income virtually identical pre-Bush. So, that must mean by your broad and irrational labeling that Bush is also a liberal taxing leftist socialist whatever else you want to call it.

And I always thought people that had homes now were reeling from laissez-faire financial strategies that occur precisely because everyone wants to think of themselves before what is capable of being held by the market economy.

It is not wise thinking of individual circumstances as a template for what we and others whom think like us as an attack platform just so we can swiftboat our least favorite politician. It is also quite hypocritical to whine about social ills in this country and not want to contribute to their elimination the only way the government can.

In other words, social engineering through the tax code. It's wrong and un-American. What makes you think the government has a right to anyones money? The government should only do what is laid out in the constitution, nothing more. The government should get out of the way of the people and stop meddling in the way we run our lives. I am sick to death of people thinking the only way to solve our problems is with yet another intrusion into our lives by the government funded with our own money. I want minimal government and a minimum of laws to tell us what to do. The government could do it's job on half of what it now takes in if it stopped trying to create the nirvana that the left wants. I have yet to see any government program designed to "help" some segment of society that wasn't a dismal failure. This country has gotten away from the ideas that the founding fathers set out. The federal government should only deal with what the constitution says it can do. The rest is up to the states. Sadly the states have been reduced to playing second fiddle to the federal monster we have created.

[yogib37 3]

Is anyone surprised that the Obama's have never held any position that would give them a "business" perspective?

The consensus in this discussion is that the Obama's have little or no experience with economics.

Here's a video of a discussion of Obama-nomics on CNBC.....

CNBC discussions

Obama's Cap Gains Calamity

SO ####### does experience have to do with it. The Retard that is in Office now, did not have experiance and guess what.. He fail at every business he owned.

So and I be MCCRap will follow Bush trail andd give the rich more money and f##K the poor.

[HAL 9000 96]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html

So... top 1% of earners on VJ... damn impressive!

That is sooooooooooo evil of him!

Scaling back capital gains impacts 100% of earners. Please view the linked video before commenting. It's clear to me that you haven't.

Anyone that has a home, or has a 401k is impacted by this lefist socialist agenda proposed by both Democrats.

This is hardly new news for the liberals are well known to believe themselves to be annointed by the almighty and thereby possessing superior intellect that allows them to spend everyone elses money the way they, the liberal elitists, think it should be spent.

This almost always means redistribution of wealth.......

And its nearly clear you never mentioned to notice that the video is a discussion between whom? Certainly its not Obama's official stance but rather others' interpretations. Interesting. So, before putting your foot in your mouth once again it would be wiser to have at least the minimal facts correct on what Obama is preaching and what your cold war mentality wants to hear. Just an objective suggestion. So lets stop being petty and move on to actual issues.

For our collective record here, my tax rate actually increased under Republican-led taxation, notwithstanding having gross income virtually identical pre-Bush. So, that must mean by your broad and irrational labeling that Bush is also a liberal taxing leftist socialist whatever else you want to call it.

And I always thought people that had homes now were reeling from laissez-faire financial strategies that occur precisely because everyone wants to think of themselves before what is capable of being held by the market economy.

It is not wise thinking of individual circumstances as a template for what we and others whom think like us as an attack platform just so we can swiftboat our least favorite politician. It is also quite hypocritical to whine about social ills in this country and not want to contribute to their elimination the only way the government can.

In other words, social engineering through the tax code. It's wrong and un-American. What makes you think the government has a right to anyones money? The government should only do what is laid out in the constitution, nothing more. The government should get out of the way of the people and stop meddling in the way we run our lives. I am sick to death of people thinking the only way to solve our problems is with yet another intrusion into our lives by the government funded with our own money. I want minimal government and a minimum of laws to tell us what to do. The government could do it's job on half of what it now takes in if it stopped trying to create the nirvana that the left wants. I have yet to see any government program designed to "help" some segment of society that wasn't a dismal failure. This country has gotten away from the ideas that the founding fathers set out. The federal government should only deal with what the constitution says it can do. The rest is up to the states. Sadly the states have been reduced to playing second fiddle to the federal monster we have created.

So... OK. Completely decentralize in favor of a 19th century States Rights style of moderated anarchy. That is what this defines.

Yes, the Federal Government should but out of people's lives, as well as discontinue making undemocratic decisions contrary to public demand. Like those underway the last 7 years.

I am also sick, but not to death, of the government making concessions based on private self-interest that do not represent the democratic nature of the very Constitution of the people that its supposed to uphold.

So, we make a decision. What do we want? Laissez faire political anarchy where the Union is not united or a Union where we are all one nation under one set of rules for all to fairly enjoy? Or can we compromise for the unity of one nation?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In other words, social engineering through the tax code. It's wrong and un-American. What makes you think the government has a right to anyones money? The government should only do what is laid out in the constitution, nothing more. The government should get out of the way of the people and stop meddling in the way we run our lives. I am sick to death of people thinking the only way to solve our problems is with yet another intrusion into our lives by the government funded with our own money. I want minimal government and a minimum of laws to tell us what to do. The government could do it's job on half of what it now takes in if it stopped trying to create the nirvana that the left wants. I have yet to see any government program designed to "help" some segment of society that wasn't a dismal failure. This country has gotten away from the ideas that the founding fathers set out. The federal government should only deal with what the constitution says it can do. The rest is up to the states. Sadly the states have been reduced to playing second fiddle to the federal monster we have created.

Promoting the general welfare of it's people was important enough to be part of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States. We can argue over at what point it, government's role becomes overreaching, but you can't dismiss that very fundamental role of government, particularly when talking about the Founding Fathers.

You won't find any of the 3 remaining presidential candidates saying they want to solve every social ill through government - that's just pure fearmongering.

I personally thought that Mike Huckabee's Fair Tax proposal shows a lot of promise. Mike Gravel also was promoting the Fair Tax.

I do think that our current system is counter productive - I'd rather see a taxation based on consumption rather than on productivity. If we have strong labor laws, unions and get rid of the back door deals that corporations get when it comes to paying taxes, then I'd say lets have a strong economy and a tax revenue will follow. However, you can't whine about unfair taxation on the upper income in this country while not recognizing that a lot of unfairness sides in favor of the rich and powerful.

[GaryC 7]

So... OK. Completely decentralize in favor of a 19th century States Rights style of moderated anarchy. That is what this defines.

Yes, the Federal Government should but out of people's lives, as well as discontinue making undemocratic decisions contrary to public demand. Like those underway the last 7 years.

I am also sick, but not to death, of the government making concessions based on private self-interest that do not represent the democratic nature of the very Constitution of the people that its supposed to uphold.

So, we make a decision. What do we want? Laissez faire political anarchy where the Union is not united or a Union where we are all one nation under one set of rules for all to fairly enjoy? Or can we compromise for the unity of one nation?

Yes, I want to get back to our roots. I want the constitution followed to the letter. I want Supreme Court justices that will always rule in favor of what is spelled out in the constitution. I want the federal government to go back to what it was designed to do. Protect our country and act as the nations voice in relations to other countries. Other than that I want the states to run their own governments with little interference from the federal government. We are creating a federal monster that just gets bigger and more intrusive by the year. I would like to see a complete overhaul of the way our nation works in favor of states rights and a drastic reduction in federal power. We are no longer the United States of America, we have become the Federal Government of America.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In other words, social engineering through the tax code. It's wrong and un-American.

And it is especially wrong and un-American when the recipients of the benefits of that social engineering are those that need it the least as is the case today.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In other words, social engineering through the tax code. It's wrong and un-American.

And it is especially wrong and un-American when the recipients of the benefits of that social engineering are those that need it the least as is the case today.

I think what Gary and many on the Right fail to recognize or acknowledge is that money is power and any concentration of power in this country is counter to it's democracy. If for the sake of argument, government were to completely step back and just allow market forces to shape our economy, we'd see a concentration of power in wealth into a small portion of the population (which actually has happened to a certain degree). An economic feudalism where only the strongest thrive. I've heard Gary say that he espouses to the principal of 'might makes right', so I can imagine that belief transcends into economics as well. However, he only needs to look at history to see what kind of natural events take place once the concentration of power and wealth is in the hands of a few. Ironically, that was the catelyst which sparked the birth of this nation...which is why the Founding Fathers had great foresight in wanting to avoid a concentration of power into the hands of a few.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Here's your current socialism, Gary; socialize the risk, privatize the rewards. This is what really stinks:

Socialism bails out a big bank

By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist

Published Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:26 PM

If you had any doubts that our nation's financial overseers are working for those with wealth, the evidence was on full display when the Federal Reserve rode to the rescue of Wall Street. While American families facing foreclosure are told by Washington (and John McCain) to try to renegotiate terms with their mortgage holder — if they can figure out who that is — those in the private investment world who raked in wild riches by taking irresponsible risks are being bailed out of their liquidity crisis by the taxpayer.

All those billions of dollars in subprime mortgage-backed securities that the investment houses can't borrow against because they are considered toxic are now being accepted by the Fed, an independent government agency, as collateral for upward of hundreds of billions of dollars in emergency loans.

I understand that economic disaster may have ensued had Bear Stearns simply been allowed to go bankrupt and had the machers in the investment world been left trying to pawn their collateralized securities for what they could get. But what a sweet gig it is to be a member of the master-of-the-universe class. First, you are awash in money created by risk-laden investments that disregard all warning signs; meanwhile, the rest of working America lives with stagnating wages even as the economy expands. Then, when all those investments collapse, you are considered too big to fail and the government swoops in to keep you afloat.

Socialized risk is what this is called. Heads they win, tails we lose.

If this credit crunch and the pain to come teaches us anything, it is that when the market is allowed to operate without supervision and regulation, insuperable greed will overcome rational, prudent behavior. Josef Ackermann, chief executive of Deutsche Bank, said it straight out in a speech this month: "I no longer believe in the market's self-healing power."

He's in good company. Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and numerous other Wall Street titans don't believe in it either, turning instead to the central bank for a handout to cover their bad bets. They should know that by bellying up to the discount window, where they can borrow money previously available only to the regulated commercial banking industry, the "leave us alone" days of the private investment banks are over. No justification for regulators keeping hands off exists any longer.

What I can't get out of my head is the way we've been suckered again into believing the malarkey sold by Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Alan Greenspan and a long list of conservative think tanks, that the market is our savior. It is so convenient to make government the bad guy, the one who interferes with everyone's pot of gold, and make open markets the answer to what ails, as Reagan did so often. But the historical reality is that the free market has a dark side that causes social displacement and instability, and by its nature it is an uncaring thing.

The free market does not raise an eyebrow when investor obsession with short-term profits results in outsourcing for cheap, exploitable labor overseas and the abandonment of health benefits or pensions for whatever American employees remain. Rather it cheers.

The market is not the best part of America. Not even close. Our government is the best part — or at least it used to be before the current gang took over.

Ultimately, it is government that defines who we are and lays out a path for how our society will be. The market wouldn't have built a uniform system of roads and bridges or provided free public education. It wouldn't have guaranteed minimum wages or insisted on safe workplaces. (Economists who claim that the market would have filled these gaps are not students of history.)

And without the government's backstop of depositor money, we would still have bank runs.

But somewhere along the way, we started to buy Reagan's line that "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.' "

Funny, Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers didn't think those words were so scary. Reagan and his ideological partners steered us wrong. They convinced the middle class to mistrust the only friend it has that is bigger than the free market bully.

Only government can reset the scales and make this country a fair place again, where you don't have to be a master-of-the-universe class member to know that you can afford college for your kids and a decent retirement for yourself. When the government stopped helping the middle class, the prosperity of this land stopped getting shared.

So after the government's done rescuing Wall Street, the rest of us could use some kind attention too. But we'd need a different government for that — a very different government.

St. Pete Times

[GaryC 7]

Here's your current socialism, Gary; socialize the risk, privatize the rewards. This is what really stinks:

Socialism bails out a big bank

By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist

Published Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:26 PM

If you had any doubts that our nation's financial overseers are working for those with wealth, the evidence was on full display when the Federal Reserve rode to the rescue of Wall Street. While American families facing foreclosure are told by Washington (and John McCain) to try to renegotiate terms with their mortgage holder — if they can figure out who that is — those in the private investment world who raked in wild riches by taking irresponsible risks are being bailed out of their liquidity crisis by the taxpayer.

All those billions of dollars in subprime mortgage-backed securities that the investment houses can't borrow against because they are considered toxic are now being accepted by the Fed, an independent government agency, as collateral for upward of hundreds of billions of dollars in emergency loans.

I understand that economic disaster may have ensued had Bear Stearns simply been allowed to go bankrupt and had the machers in the investment world been left trying to pawn their collateralized securities for what they could get. But what a sweet gig it is to be a member of the master-of-the-universe class. First, you are awash in money created by risk-laden investments that disregard all warning signs; meanwhile, the rest of working America lives with stagnating wages even as the economy expands. Then, when all those investments collapse, you are considered too big to fail and the government swoops in to keep you afloat.

Socialized risk is what this is called. Heads they win, tails we lose.

If this credit crunch and the pain to come teaches us anything, it is that when the market is allowed to operate without supervision and regulation, insuperable greed will overcome rational, prudent behavior. Josef Ackermann, chief executive of Deutsche Bank, said it straight out in a speech this month: "I no longer believe in the market's self-healing power."

He's in good company. Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and numerous other Wall Street titans don't believe in it either, turning instead to the central bank for a handout to cover their bad bets. They should know that by bellying up to the discount window, where they can borrow money previously available only to the regulated commercial banking industry, the "leave us alone" days of the private investment banks are over. No justification for regulators keeping hands off exists any longer.

What I can't get out of my head is the way we've been suckered again into believing the malarkey sold by Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Alan Greenspan and a long list of conservative think tanks, that the market is our savior. It is so convenient to make government the bad guy, the one who interferes with everyone's pot of gold, and make open markets the answer to what ails, as Reagan did so often. But the historical reality is that the free market has a dark side that causes social displacement and instability, and by its nature it is an uncaring thing.

The free market does not raise an eyebrow when investor obsession with short-term profits results in outsourcing for cheap, exploitable labor overseas and the abandonment of health benefits or pensions for whatever American employees remain. Rather it cheers.

The market is not the best part of America. Not even close. Our government is the best part — or at least it used to be before the current gang took over.

Ultimately, it is government that defines who we are and lays out a path for how our society will be. The market wouldn't have built a uniform system of roads and bridges or provided free public education. It wouldn't have guaranteed minimum wages or insisted on safe workplaces. (Economists who claim that the market would have filled these gaps are not students of history.)

And without the government's backstop of depositor money, we would still have bank runs.

But somewhere along the way, we started to buy Reagan's line that "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.' "

Funny, Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers didn't think those words were so scary. Reagan and his ideological partners steered us wrong. They convinced the middle class to mistrust the only friend it has that is bigger than the free market bully.

Only government can reset the scales and make this country a fair place again, where you don't have to be a master-of-the-universe class member to know that you can afford college for your kids and a decent retirement for yourself. When the government stopped helping the middle class, the prosperity of this land stopped getting shared.

So after the government's done rescuing Wall Street, the rest of us could use some kind attention too. But we'd need a different government for that — a very different government.

St. Pete Times

I don't believe in bank bail outs either. Let them fail. If they knew that they were not going to get a bail out just maybe they would have acted more responsibly. As long as they know they have the government to run to they felt freerer to take such a ill advised risk.