You Can Not Help the Poor by Destroying the Rich

[Charade]

I think he said something about a scalpel. He's going to end up with a surplus, remember?

Must be a really BIG one.

 

[just4today]

Must be a really BIG one.

I hope so If he can pull this off, especially with Pelosi and Reid helping out, I will be amazed.

 

[Charade]

I hope so If he can pull this off, especially with Pelosi and Reid helping out, I will be amazed.

Indeed. A trillion dollars in new spending, "scalpeled" cuts in spending, tax cuts for 95 percent (plus the handouts and credits) with a tax increase in taxes of the top 2 percent is going to NET $700B?

Really???

 

[just4today]

Indeed. A trillion dollars in new spending, "scalpeled" cuts in spending, tax cuts for 95 percent (plus the handouts and credits) with a tax increase in taxes of the top 2 percent is going to NET $700B?

Really???

I find it remarkable that nobody has ever thought to go over the federal budget with a scalpel before.

 

[chrisw127]

I have to disagree. Whatever you may think about Soviet Russia, the fact is that under Soviet control over 90% of the population was helped by destroying the rich. Of course, it was done so at the expense of personal freedom, but when you look at Russia prior to 1917, a small fraction of the country lived in luxury while the vast majority of its people had nothing. The level of poverty in Russia prior to the revolution is staggering, like something out of the Middle Ages. And it didn't just touch a small segment; it was nearly everyone. There was no middle class to speak of.

I'm not saying that the Soviet experiment was a success. The purges under Stalin were horrible. There was very little personal freedom. But when you consider that they industrialized the country from nothing with almost no proper infrastructure to do so, provided education for everyone, and healthcare (albeit, not the best healthcare but a vast improvement from none), you have to admit that taking from the rich did work to some extent. And, they did it while fighting WWII. This isn't an original thought, by the way. Most people who study the former Soviet Union agree that on this level, the Soviet era was a success.

Obviously, I don't think that's what should happen here. For the record, I'm not a communist. But I do lean toward socialism.

 

[bicker]

Remember that the $700B gains the American people equity stake in banks. The last time the US Government did something like that, they made back all the money they put in, within seven years, plus a little extra. Not a great investment, in terms of APY, but still all the money was paid back.

 

[bicker]

I think a lot of us would like to see spending cuts, but we disagree about which cuts should be made, and with regard to what spending should be increased to fulfill society's obligation to its people. The fact that eight years of Republican Presidents, including two where they had majorities in both houses of Congress, didn't lead to across-the-board spending cuts shows that there simply isn't the will in either the Republican or Democratic Party to seriously reduce government spending. History shows that the Democrats who claim they're for massive cuts in overall government spending (are there any such people?) aren't in synch with their party, and the Republicans who claim they're for massive cuts in overall government spending are simply lying to you.

 

[mickeysgal]

Talk is cheap.

...and actions speak louder than words.

Which is what many of us have been saying about Obama and his lack of experience and accomplishments.

 

[Charade]

Remember that the $700B gains the American people equity stake in banks. The last time the US Government did something like that, they made back all the money they put in, within seven years, plus a little extra. Not a great investment, in terms of APY, but still all the money was paid back.

You're talking about the bailout $700B. I'm talking about the $700B that one poster has put up (numerous times) comparing the Obama tax plan to the McCain tax plan. She stated that Obama's plan will be a net gain of $700B while McCain's will a net loss of $600B.

 

[just4today]

You're talking about the bailout $700B. I'm talking about the $700B that one poster has put up (numerous times) comparing the Obama tax plan to the McCain tax plan. She stated that Obama's plan will be a net gain of $700B while McCain's will a net loss of $600B.

Please, somebody, explain to me in the simplest of terms (because I'm slow) how on earth this is possible.

 

[bicker]

I chalk that all up to noise. Both sides are going to screw up the economy just as much; both sides are going to spend just as much; the only real difference between the two with regard to financial issues is what part of the public will each favor/disfavor in terms of taxation: McCain will tax everyone pretty-much equally, while Obama will tax rich people more. If all you care about is money, and you make over $250K per year, vote for McCain. If all you care about is money, and you make less than $200K per year, vote for Obama. If you're in-between, then you'll have to make the choice on some other criterion.

 

[adkkev]

I find it remarkable that nobody has ever thought to go over the federal budget with a scalpel before.

It's been attempted but struck down by the Supreme Court.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/25/scotus.lineitem/

 

[Charade]

I think a lot of us would like to see spending cuts, but we disagree about which cuts should be made, and with regard to what spending should be increased to fulfill society's obligation to its people. The fact that eight years of Republican Presidents, including two where they had majorities in both houses of Congress, didn't lead to across-the-board spending cuts shows that there simply isn't the will in either the Republican or Democratic Party to seriously reduce government spending. History shows that the Democrats who claim they're for massive cuts in overall government spending (are there any such people?) aren't in synch with their party, and the Republicans who claim they're for massive cuts in overall government spending are simply lying to you.

Whoa...

lying is a pretty serious charge. I doubt you'll find many Republicans that agreed with the spending under Bush. I sure haven't. But thanks for using such a broad brush.

Interesting that you believe that neither party is interested in spending cuts but call the Republicans (as a group) liars. Do you really think they're for massive increases in spending? Or spending cuts and their representatives failed them?

 

[dvcgirl]

I sympathize... Having done it once before, myself, I can imagine how wearying it could be supporting the lesser candidate.

 

[momto2girls]

You know what I don't understand? How raising the taxes on the top 2 percent of earners 4 percent and lowering the taxes on the bottom 95 percent (plus all the handouts) is going to bring in $700 billion. IMO, the math doesn't work out. According to taxfoundation.org (from IRS data), in 2006 the total tax (income) collected was about 1 trillion dollars. Does anyone really think that their is $700 billion on the table to collect (on top of the 1 trillion already collected from all taxpayers) from the top 2 percent of earners if he increases their tax rate by 4 percent? Another reason it doesn't work is because the 4 percent is a raw number. It's highly unlikely that the full 4 percent will be collected. In the data I got from taxfoundation.org, the average income tax rate is 22 percent for the top 1 percent of earners. So that 4 percent may only actually yield 2 or 3 at most.

So (and I've asked several times) where is that $700B coming from? Hiding under the rabbit in his hat?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html

I wonder this too. My family is far from wealthy, but we do own a small business and will be affected by the Obama's tax plan. We, of course, will be sheltering our money as much as possible. We can't shelter everything so my husband will not be adding an employee that he planned to add next year and will cease growing the business any further (luckily the size of our business can be easily flexed). Depending on how bad the tax changes are, we will lay off 1-2 people as well. And in the short run, any additional taxes will simply be deducted from the amount of our charitable contributions for the year. One way or another, we will remain whole and none of these things will be beneficial for the economy.

My point is that the "wealthy" will find a way to decrease their taxes. So, the tax amount raised won't be nearly as big as expected. Where is the government going to get the additional funding then? Hmmm.... I expect that those with lower incomes (say $150K or maybe even $42K ) will be called upon to do their "patriotic duty".

 

[bicker]

So the question is do you want McCain coming after you, as a middle-income family, with higher taxes right-off, or would you prefer to have Obama make the taxing as progressive as possible, thereby sparing you at least some measure of taxation?

 

[Charade]

It's been attempted but struck down by the Supreme Court.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/25/scotus.lineitem/

And that's something I think we all could agree on that the President should have the power to do.

But the reason for striking it down was purely a Constitutional one.

They need a Constitutional amendment to give the president that power. I wonder how much more this has been discussed since that ruling. Not much I would suspect because I believe many politicians think they have a better chance of getting their "pet" spending passed when it's attached to a larger bill.

 

[Island_Lauri]

To help low-income families in particular, Mr. Obama would give a “Making Work Pay Credit” equal to 6.2 percent of a worker’s first $8,100 in wages. That would yield a tax credit of $500 for a single person, and $1,000 for a couple in which both adults work. As a result, a low-income couple now paying no income taxes might receive a $1,000 refund.

But Mr. McCain has told audiences that Mr. Obama’s “plan gives away your tax dollars to those who don’t pay taxes. That’s not a tax cut, that’s welfare.”

Mr. Obama responded last week in Kansas City, Mo.: “McCain is so out of touch with the struggles you are facing that he must be the first politician in history to call a tax cut for working people welfare.”

Mr. Obama wants to eliminate income taxes for people over age 65 who earn less than $50,000 a year. So under his plan, a single person that age with income of $50,000 would experience a $2,339 tax cut, according to the Tax Policy Center. Under Mr. McCain’s plans, that person’s taxes would remain unchanged.

“What Obama’s doing,” said Mr. Stretch of Deloitte, “is he’s taking more money from people like me, and spending it on exemptions for the elderly and on tax credits for education.”

But Mr. Stretch added, “When Obama says he cuts taxes for every working family under $150,000, I’d say that’s true.”

A single head of household with one child and $15,000 in income now receives a tax refund of $3,859, largely because of the earned income tax credit, according to the Tax Policy Center. That refund would increase by $500 under Mr. Obama’s plan. Under Mr. McCain’s plan there would be no change for that taxpayer.

According to Deloitte’s calculations, a single taxpayer who earns $35,000 a year and has no children would get a $500 tax cut under Mr. Obama’s plan — to $3,000 a year from the current $3,500. Mr. McCain would leave that person’s taxes unchanged.

Mr. McCain also proposes giving many households a $5,000 tax credit when they buy family health insurance, which costs $12,000 nationwide on average. But households would for the first time have to pay taxes on employer-provided insurance.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27466667/

 

[Charade]

So the question is do you want McCain coming after you, as a middle-income family, with higher taxes right-off, or would you prefer to have Obama make the taxing as progressive as possible, thereby sparing you at least some measure of taxation?

Could you quote the person you're responding to or asking a question of?

Otherwise, the flow of the dialog becomes disjointed.

Thanks!!

 

[Took]

And irrelevant. No one is suggesting anything that would "destroy" the rich.

Another red herring desperation appeal.

Well said, Bicker. AND, I suspect, you speak for the majority of Americans. And the majority of the "rich" whom BO's tax plan will affect will barely miss the extra. They also don't spend it or really need it.