McCain leadin both Hillary and Obama in National poll

[dalegg 143]

Even if McCain wins, Repulicans will likely loose more senate and congressional seats. Making it much more difficult for McCain to push a Republican focused agenda like Bush did. If he wants to make it through office with any accomplishments, he will have to go the center or left on his policies.

Even if Republicans win the white house, Its likely that Democrats will essentially be in power.

That's pretty much what Rush Limbaugh has been saying, and the main beef of Conservatives with McCain. That essentially he is a tool to the left and he is just about as good as having a Democrat. Conservative Republicans have actually accepted that the Democrats have basically already won and now it's just a matter of whether or not the liberals win.

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

I think it would be interesting to look at what candidate ever won an election based on promises to raise taxes. Has that ever happened?

Who is promising to raise everyone's taxes?

[dalegg 143]

I think it would be interesting to look at what candidate ever won an election based on promises to raise taxes. Has that ever happened?

Who is promising to raise everyone's taxes?

No one that I can think of. I'm talking about to anyone- even the top bracket. Has anyone ever said they will raise taxes to anyone and won a Presidential election.

Seems to me that Gore was saying a lot of things that added up to higher taxes and despite the Good times in the 90s he couldn't pull off a win against the simple Election promise of lower taxes. I don't remember anything at all about Bush's 2000 campaign other than lower taxes and that was all it took. Gore promised all sorts of neat things but when it got down to it, people are simply greedy.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Two issues will determine the outcome of this election - the war in Iraq and the economy, therefore whoever is the Democratic candidate will be our next president. History says so.

You can say Clinton was elected because of a bad economy, but what other Democrat was elected because of that?

Carter?- Nope, people were pissed about Nixon.

During Carter's administration, the economy suffered double-digit inflation, coupled with very high interest rates, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1 percent, compared to 3.2 percent of the 1960s. [33] The prime rate hit 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President.[34] Investments in fixed income (both bonds and pensions being paid to retired people) were becoming less valuable. The high interest rates would lead to a sharp recession in the early 1980s.

Carter=Bad economy=Reagan Election. Reagan was a Republican I think

Johnson?-Nope, he took over because people loved Kennedy.

Kennedy?-I don't so. The economy was not in that bad of shape in the early 60s. In fact, the odd thing is that Eisenhower expanded social programs and Kennedy cut taxes. Kennedy was elected more because he offered a nice fresh face with social changes as opposed to the grumpy face of Nixon.

Were not going back to the depression for comparison are we?

Reagan's election in 1980 and then Clinton's in 1992, both of whom were elected because the American people had lost faith in the incumbent president - that's what I'm talking about. In other words, look back at all the President's with low approval ratings and tell me how many times the incumbent Party won anyway?

2004?

[GaryC 7]

I think it would be interesting to look at what candidate ever won an election based on promises to raise taxes. Has that ever happened?

Who is promising to raise everyone's taxes?

Clinton and Obama are both saying they will let Bush's tax cuts expire. That is raising taxes.

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

I think it would be interesting to look at what candidate ever won an election based on promises to raise taxes. Has that ever happened?

Who is promising to raise everyone's taxes?

No one that I can think of. I'm talking about to anyone- even the top bracket. Has anyone ever said they will raise taxes to anyone and won a Presidential election.

Seems to me that Gore was saying a lot of things that added up to higher taxes and despite the Good times in the 90s he couldn't pull off a win against the simple Election promise of lower taxes. I don't remember anything at all about Bush's 2000 campaign other than lower taxes and that was all it took. Gore promised all sorts of neat things but when it got down to it, people are simply greedy.

I think it comes down to what is going to be the more popular argument - staying the course we're on or revamping the tax code so that the Middle and Lower Class get more of a tax break while the wealthiest will pay a little more. Ultimately, no matter how wealthy someone is, they don't want our economy collapsing...then they're money is worth less. So the argument comes down to what is the best medicine for our ailing economy.

[GaryC 7]

Where people are on the poltical spectrum is a matter of point of view. That and about 41% of people consider themselves democrats, while its about 30% or so for Indpendents and Republicans.

I think the damage is less significant than you might think. This election cycle has generated much more interest in the Democratic party. Even if McCain wins, Repulicans will likely loose more senate and congressional seats. Making it much more difficult for McCain to push a Republican focused agenda like Bush did. If he wants to make it through office with any accomplishments, he will have to go the center or left on his policies.

Even if Republicans win the white house, Its likely that Democrats will essentially be in power.

The congressional approval numbers are at record lows. less than 20% by some polls. Bush's approval numbers are better than the dem controlled congress right now. I wouldn't be surprised to see a major shake up in congress. Don't count your dem chickens in congress either.

Edited April 1, 2008 by GaryC

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

I think it would be interesting to look at what candidate ever won an election based on promises to raise taxes. Has that ever happened?

Who is promising to raise everyone's taxes?

Clinton and Obama are both saying they will let Bush's tax cuts expire. That is raising taxes.

It means a very small percentage of the American population would be paying more...not the majority.

...and they both are cutting the taxes of Middle and Lower Class Americans...that's lowering taxes, not raising.

Big difference...huge difference.

Edited April 1, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

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

FWIW... Obama tax plan: $80 billion in cuts, five-minute filings

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed overhauling the tax code to lower taxes for the poor and middle class, increase them for the rich and make it so most Americans can file their taxes in five minutes.

The tax relief plan he envisions for the middle class alone would mean $80 billion or more in tax cuts, he said.

Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is a front-runner for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, said during a speech at the Tax Policy Center that the present tax code reflects the wrong priorities because it rewards wealth instead of work.

"Instead of having all of us pay our fair share, we've got over $1 trillion worth of loopholes in the corporate tax code," he said. "This isn't the invisible hand of the market at work. It's the successful work of special interests."

The result, according to Obama? "Gaps in wealth in this country grow wider, while the costs to working people are greater."

His plan means billions in breaks by nixing income taxes for the 7 million senior citizens making less than $50,000 a year, establishing a universal credit for the 10 million homeowners who do not itemize their deductions -- most of whom make less than $50,000 annually -- and providing 150 million Americans with tax cuts of up to $1,000.

"I'd reward work by providing an income tax cut of up to $500 per person -- or $1,000 for each working family -- to offset the payroll tax that they're already paying," he said.

"Because this credit would be greater than their income tax bill, my proposal would effectively eliminate all income taxes for 10 million working Americans."

Obama also said he would repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.

"At a time when Americans are working harder than ever, we are taxing income from work at nearly twice the level that we're taxing gains for investors," Obama said. "We've lost the balance between work and wealth."

Obama's plan is similar in many ways to his Democratic rivals, including Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, and former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/oba...plan/index.html

[GaryC 7]

I think it would be interesting to look at what candidate ever won an election based on promises to raise taxes. Has that ever happened?

Who is promising to raise everyone's taxes?

Clinton and Obama are both saying they will let Bush's tax cuts expire. That is raising taxes.

It means a very small percentage of the American population would be paying more...not the majority. Big difference...huge difference.

Wrong, it means everyone pays more. My taxes will go up almost $2000 if they let it expire.

Since you must have missed it, or ignored it here is a post by Mawlson.

Here's a better link:

What the Bush Tax Cut Means for You

According to the above,

27% rate goes to 25%

30% rate goes to 28%

35% rate goes to 33%

38.6% rate goes to 35%

The existing 10% and 15% rates remain unchanged

Without further action by Congress, rates will revert to 15%, 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39.6% after 2010. The 10% rate would disappear altogether.

At Long Last: Marriage-Penalty Relief

For years people have griped about having to pay higher taxes just because they got married. The new law doesn't completely eliminate the so-called marriage penalty, but it does deliver meaningful tax savings to joint filers and married persons who file separately from their spouses. Relief comes in the form of expanded 15% brackets and larger standard deduction amounts. The standard deduction for joint filers is now exactly double the amount for singles.

Examples:

1. Single, age 60, $30,000 income including $3,000 of dividends

Old tax: $3,031

New tax: $2,681

Savings: $350

2. Unmarried head of household with one child under 17, $30,000 income

Old tax: $1,435

New tax: $1,035

Savings: $400

3. Married with two kids under 17, $50,000 income

Old tax: $2,678

New tax: $1,545

Savings: $1,133

4. Single, no kids, $50,000 income

Old tax: $7,686

New tax: $7,360

Savings: $326

5. Married with two kids under 17, $100,000 income, $15,000 of itemized deductions

Old tax: $12,162

New tax: $9,820

Savings: $2,342

6. Single, no kids, $100,000 income including $3,000 of dividends, $15,000 of itemized deductions

Old tax: $18,813

New tax: $17,302

Savings: $1,511

7. Married with two kids under 17, $300,000 income including $10,000 of dividends, $50,000 of itemized deductions (before phase-out rule)

Old tax: $69,607

New tax: $62,687

Savings: $6,920

Looks like the Bush tax cuts affect everybody, not just the super-rich.

Edited April 1, 2008 by GaryC

[kaydee457 13]

I think it would be interesting to look at what candidate ever won an election based on promises to raise taxes. Has that ever happened?

Who is promising to raise everyone's taxes?

Clinton and Obama are both saying they will let Bush's tax cuts expire. That is raising taxes.

It means a very small percentage of the American population would be paying more...not the majority. Big difference...huge difference.

Wrong, it means everyone pays more. My taxes will go up almost $2000 if they let it expire.

Since you must have missed it, or ignored it here is a post by Mawlson.

Here's a better link:

What the Bush Tax Cut Means for You

According to the above,

27% rate goes to 25%

30% rate goes to 28%

35% rate goes to 33%

38.6% rate goes to 35%

The existing 10% and 15% rates remain unchanged

Without further action by Congress, rates will revert to 15%, 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39.6% after 2010. The 10% rate would disappear altogether.

At Long Last: Marriage-Penalty Relief

For years people have griped about having to pay higher taxes just because they got married. The new law doesn't completely eliminate the so-called marriage penalty, but it does deliver meaningful tax savings to joint filers and married persons who file separately from their spouses. Relief comes in the form of expanded 15% brackets and larger standard deduction amounts. The standard deduction for joint filers is now exactly double the amount for singles.

Examples:

1. Single, age 60, $30,000 income including $3,000 of dividends

Old tax: $3,031

New tax: $2,681

Savings: $350

2. Unmarried head of household with one child under 17, $30,000 income

Old tax: $1,435

New tax: $1,035

Savings: $400

3. Married with two kids under 17, $50,000 income

Old tax: $2,678

New tax: $1,545

Savings: $1,133

4. Single, no kids, $50,000 income

Old tax: $7,686

New tax: $7,360

Savings: $326

5. Married with two kids under 17, $100,000 income, $15,000 of itemized deductions

Old tax: $12,162

New tax: $9,820

Savings: $2,342

6. Single, no kids, $100,000 income including $3,000 of dividends, $15,000 of itemized deductions

Old tax: $18,813

New tax: $17,302

Savings: $1,511

7. Married with two kids under 17, $300,000 income including $10,000 of dividends, $50,000 of itemized deductions (before phase-out rule)

Old tax: $69,607

New tax: $62,687

Savings: $6,920

Looks like the Bush tax cuts affect everybody, not just the super-rich.

It's laughable that these "liberals" in this forum beleive that Hillary and Obama mean to reduce their taxes......Socialist don't know how to do that!

For those of you that think that the "rich" are "wealthy", it's been said that both Hillary and Obama consider families that make more than 65K "rich".........

Further, for those of you that beleive that the "rich", the truly "rich" and wealthy, those that employ most of us, need to keep their wealth in this country to be taxed more and more, think thrice!

The very families that the democrats wish to rape again will simply disappear.......and so will your jobs!

Taxing business, and those that create them and make them thrive, to redistribute their wealth that they've aquired through innovation and hard work, to those that haven't earned it is the cornerstone of socialism.

But you peeps already know that, doncha?

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

Gary, where did he get those figures?

Here's from a reliable source: (from the Economist's View)

The Bush Tax Cuts Did Not Make Taxes More Progressive

In case you hear otherwise (and you will):

Have the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts Made the Tax Code More Progressive?, by Aviva Aron-Dine, CBPP: Summary Supporters of extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts claim that these tax cuts’ benefits have been broadly and fairly distributed. Some argue that the tax cuts have actually made the tax system more progressive, pointing to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data showing that the share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1 percent of households rose modestly after the tax cuts were enacted.

The claim that the tax cuts are fairly distributed and have made the tax code more progressive does not withstand scrutiny. Whether measured in dollar terms or as a share of household income, the tax cuts going to high-income households are much larger than those going to all other households.

When fully in effect, the tax cuts will boost after-tax income by more than 7 percent among households with incomes of more than $1 million, but just 2 percent among middle-income families... A progressive tax cut, like a progressive tax system, is one that reduces inequality. But, as these data show, the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 are widening the gap in after-tax incomes, which was historically large even before the tax cuts were enacted.

In 2010, when the tax cuts are fully in effect, the average household earning more than $1 million a year will receive $158,000 in tax cuts, according to the Tax Policy Center; the average middle-income household will receive $810.

The same CBO data cited by the tax cuts' supporters show that the top 1 percent of households pay almost 5 percent less of their income in federal personal income taxes than they did in 2000, before the tax cuts. No other group got a tax cut nearly as large.

The CBO finding cited by the tax cuts' supporters does not change these facts. High-income households now pay a modestly larger share of federal income taxes not because the tax cuts are somehow tilted against them to the contrary, the tax cuts are tilted decisively in their favor but instead because (1) their incomes have risen much faster than other households, and (2) the tax cuts have significantly shrunk the total revenue.

The Tax Cuts Widened Income Gaps

A progressive tax code is one that makes the distribution of after-tax income more equal than the distribution of pre-tax income. (This definition is accepted by analysts across the political spectrum.) Hence, one tax code is “more progressive†than another if it has a larger effect in reducing income inequality. For the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to have made the tax code more progressive, after-tax incomes would have to be less unequal today than if the tax cuts had not occurred. In fact, the tax cuts have made the distribution of after-tax income more unequal.

There's been quite a bit of denial about this from the crowd that believes that tax cuts for the wealthy are the answer to every problem. They want to believe - or want you to believe - that tax cuts pay for themselves and, at the same time, make taxes more progressive. Here's the entire report. [On changes in the distribution of income, see the graphs and discussion in this post from Lane Kenworthy.]

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economis...ush-tax-cu.html

[GaryC 7]

Gary, where did he get those figures?

Here's from a reliable source: (from the Economist's View)

The Bush Tax Cuts Did Not Make Taxes More Progressive

In case you hear otherwise (and you will):

Have the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts Made the Tax Code More Progressive?, by Aviva Aron-Dine, CBPP: Summary Supporters of extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts claim that these tax cuts’ benefits have been broadly and fairly distributed. Some argue that the tax cuts have actually made the tax system more progressive, pointing to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data showing that the share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1 percent of households rose modestly after the tax cuts were enacted.

The claim that the tax cuts are fairly distributed and have made the tax code more progressive does not withstand scrutiny. Whether measured in dollar terms or as a share of household income, the tax cuts going to high-income households are much larger than those going to all other households.

When fully in effect, the tax cuts will boost after-tax income by more than 7 percent among households with incomes of more than $1 million, but just 2 percent among middle-income families... A progressive tax cut, like a progressive tax system, is one that reduces inequality. But, as these data show, the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 are widening the gap in after-tax incomes, which was historically large even before the tax cuts were enacted.

In 2010, when the tax cuts are fully in effect, the average household earning more than $1 million a year will receive $158,000 in tax cuts, according to the Tax Policy Center; the average middle-income household will receive $810.

The same CBO data cited by the tax cuts' supporters show that the top 1 percent of households pay almost 5 percent less of their income in federal personal income taxes than they did in 2000, before the tax cuts. No other group got a tax cut nearly as large.

The CBO finding cited by the tax cuts' supporters does not change these facts. High-income households now pay a modestly larger share of federal income taxes not because the tax cuts are somehow tilted against them to the contrary, the tax cuts are tilted decisively in their favor but instead because (1) their incomes have risen much faster than other households, and (2) the tax cuts have significantly shrunk the total revenue.

The Tax Cuts Widened Income Gaps

A progressive tax code is one that makes the distribution of after-tax income more equal than the distribution of pre-tax income. (This definition is accepted by analysts across the political spectrum.) Hence, one tax code is “more progressive†than another if it has a larger effect in reducing income inequality. For the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to have made the tax code more progressive, after-tax incomes would have to be less unequal today than if the tax cuts had not occurred. In fact, the tax cuts have made the distribution of after-tax income more unequal.

There's been quite a bit of denial about this from the crowd that believes that tax cuts for the wealthy are the answer to every problem. They want to believe - or want you to believe - that tax cuts pay for themselves and, at the same time, make taxes more progressive. Here's the entire report. [On changes in the distribution of income, see the graphs and discussion in this post from Lane Kenworthy.]

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economis...ush-tax-cu.html

What I posted was reality. My personal taxes went down almost $2000 after the cuts. I am not rich.

As far as what you posted: I don't believe in "progressive" taxes. It should be a flat percentage of income whether you make $10,000 or $10,000,000. Progressive taxes are just social engineering that plays off of class envy.

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

Well lets not let some expert economists stop us from spinning Bush's economic policy as sound.

You guys just don't get it...it's the economy, stupid... buh-bye Republican WH...here comes the Democrats.

the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute (EPI) on Aug. 12 convened a group of top economists to discuss the Bush administration policies, which still are devastating working families nearly two years since the recession officially ended in November 2001. The EPI speakers were among 450 economists who signed a statement in February, which said that the then-proposed Bush tax cuts for millionaires would not stimulate much needed job growth but would create an ill-advised new tax structure.

The kind of “tight-lipped optimism” about jobs and the economy now voiced by Bush and his advisors is “distorting what is happening now and even more so in the future,” said Robert Solow, a 1987 Nobel Prize winner in economics and professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “The fiscal polices of this administration are systematically sacrificing the future of this nation.”

Tax Cuts for Millionaires No Solution to Nation’s Economic Woes

Rather than stimulating job growth, the Bush-backed millionaire tax cuts will help stimulate a massive federal budget shortfall—a 10-year deficit of nearly $6 trillion, according to George Akerlof, a 2001 Nobel Prize winner and economist at the University of California, Berkeley. “The popular discussion is there might be some question whether Bush’s economic policies are advisable,” he said. “But that’s wrong—they’re the worst in over 200 years.”

http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/newsarchive/ns08132003.cfm

[GaryC 7]

I thought so. The outfit that put this story out is just a left wing think tank that opposes Bush.

Donors

According to New York Times reporter Matt Bai, CBPP is one of three left wing think tanks funded by the Democracy Alliance. The other two are the Center for American Progress and the Economic Policy Institute. According to Bai's account, representatives of CBPP and the other two Democracy Alliance-sponsored think tanks attended the May 2006 meeting of the Democracy Alliance at the Barton Creek Resort near Austin, Texas. Their role was to "talk about the agendas they were busy crafting that would catapult Democratic politics into the economic future."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_on_Bud...licy_Priorities

Your must do better than this Steven. Quoting left wing think tanks gets you no more than me quoting Fox News.

Edited April 1, 2008 by GaryC