Obama's Tax Policies

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Don’t forget his cap and trade program as well as his idea to raise taxes on the oil companies. The little guy is going to pay through the nose for both these things.

The costs will be such a drag on the economy it will make the current problems look like boom times.

yes and Bush’s tax cuts will stimulate the economy all the way to dead last.

Republicans say this stuff all the time and are always wrong, why not just stop saying it?

Also McCain for cap and trade.

100meters, I’m curious; in your opinion, where is the point of diminishing return w/r/t taxation? At what point do we as a state have too high of a tax rate.

[/quote]

When we are taxed more money than our gov. spends

82

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Don’t forget his cap and trade program as well as his idea to raise taxes on the oil companies. The little guy is going to pay through the nose for both these things.

The costs will be such a drag on the economy it will make the current problems look like boom times.

yes and Bush’s tax cuts will stimulate the economy all the way to dead last.

Republicans say this stuff all the time and are always wrong, why not just stop saying it?

Also McCain for cap and trade.

100meters, I’m curious; in your opinion, where is the point of diminishing return w/r/t taxation? At what point do we as a state have too high of a tax rate.

[/quote]

Taxes are too high when growth becomes low from taxes hindering private enterprise. I can’t put a finger on the exact number, but historically it would certainly be higher than now.

Right now we have very slow growth and very low taxes. Historically those 2 have gone together.

84

The stock market fell 400 points and oil went up $11/barrel. I think its sinking in that this guy might get elected and he really means to do everything he (and his daddy) says. This means rampant inflation, much higher taxes, spiraling regulations. He’ll then make speeches about how evil businessmen are causing it all.

And the idiots will lap it up.

85

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The stock market fell 400 points and oil went up $11/barrel. I think its sinking in that this guy might get elected and he really means to do everything he (and his daddy) says. This means rampant inflation, much higher taxes, spiraling regulations. He’ll then make speeches about how evil businessmen are causing it all.

And the idiots will lap it up.[/quote]

Did you miss the unemployment/job numbers?

Did you miss the statement by Israel that bombing Iran appears to be inevitable?

Come on man, how about a tiny bit of integrity?

86

[quote]100meters wrote:
Taxes are too high when growth becomes low from taxes hindering private enterprise. I can’t put a finger on the exact number, but historically it would certainly be higher than now.

Right now we have very slow growth and very low taxes. Historically those 2 have gone together.[/quote]

Well, I think we can both agree that economic growth is a multifaceted beast, and that the rate of taxation is only one of those facets. Personally, I’m thinking that the nations economy and it’s growth is being largely effected by Bush’s reckless spending in conjunction with the tax cuts, thus resulting in our inflation and debt. Bottom line; Bush has largely wiped his feet on true fiscal conservatism.

I know this; the 1920’, the 1960’s, and the 1980’s represented the largest periods of economic growth in the nation’s history. All of these periods of economic growth coincided with and were preceded by significant cuts to the marginal tax rates. I don’t think this is a coincidence.

87

[quote]vroom wrote:
Did you miss the statement by Israel that bombing Iran appears to be inevitable?[/quote]

Unfortunately, I believe it might be inevitable, don’t you? I mean, Europe has been talking with Iran for quite some time w/r/t their pursuit of nukes with no real progress. I have no idea how the Obama thinks that somehow he can do better. Maybe it’s his giant sized ego, combined with his terrible lack of experience w/r/t foreign policy. But his talking to achmawhackjob will not produce the results he envisions.

Let me ask you this, would you feel comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapon capabilities? I’m not. And personally, I would support a military strike to prevent it.

88

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Let me ask you this, would you feel comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapon capabilities? I’m not. And personally, I would support a military strike to prevent it.
[/quote]

It’s been a while, but I’ve mentioned in the past that I don’t trust Iran.

My comment was simply concerning the real reasons for the stock market drop and the change in the price of oil.

89

[quote]vroom wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Let me ask you this, would you feel comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapon capabilities? I’m not. And personally, I would support a military strike to prevent it.

It’s been a while, but I’ve mentioned in the past that I don’t trust Iran.

My comment was simply concerning the real reasons for the stock market drop and the change in the price of oil.[/quote]

Unfortunately the instability of Iran and it’s effect on geopolitics, will in turn have it’s effect on the market. Not too much we can we can do about that until Mr. Whackjob is not throwing around his insane statements and threats, and Iran gives up it’s nuclear weapon ambitions. Of course, we could always invade and institute a regime change… :wink:

As far as the price of oil, I think we are all well aware that as soon as the US get’s it collective head out of it’s ass and starts to pursue it’s own domestic oil, the price of oil will go way down. Personally, I think that if the US announced plans to drill domestically and finally start building more refineries, that will have a positive effect on the stock market and the economy at large.

90

[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The stock market fell 400 points and oil went up $11/barrel. I think its sinking in that this guy might get elected and he really means to do everything he (and his daddy) says. This means rampant inflation, much higher taxes, spiraling regulations. He’ll then make speeches about how evil businessmen are causing it all.

And the idiots will lap it up.

Did you miss the unemployment/job numbers?

Did you miss the statement by Israel that bombing Iran appears to be inevitable?

Come on man, how about a tiny bit of integrity?[/quote]

Yes, I did miss those. Why would that cause you to question my integrity? Oh, I get it…a weak attempt at trolling.

Come on man, how about a tiny bit of effort?

91

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Yes, I did miss those. Why would that cause you to question my integrity? Oh, I get it…a weak attempt at trolling.

Come on man, how about a tiny bit of effort?
[/quote]

Any chance you’ll take your own advice (i.e. effort)… or will you just pick a random cause for any negative event you see?

Wait, maybe I’m the reason for high oil prices and a falling stock market!

:stuck_out_tongue:

92

[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Yes, I did miss those. Why would that cause you to question my integrity? Oh, I get it…a weak attempt at trolling.

Come on man, how about a tiny bit of effort?

Any chance you’ll take your own advice (i.e. effort)… or will you just pick a random cause for any negative event you see?

Wait, maybe I’m the reason for high oil prices and a falling stock market!

:p[/quote]

Well, you DID assume that I am omniscient. I don’t know whether to be flattered or not.

Where did you hear that Israel is going to for certain bomb Iran?

93

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
vroom wrote:
Did you miss the statement by Israel that bombing Iran appears to be inevitable?

Unfortunately, I believe it might be inevitable, don’t you? I mean, Europe has been talking with Iran for quite some time w/r/t their pursuit of nukes with no real progress. I have no idea how the Obama thinks that somehow he can do better. Maybe it’s his giant sized ego, combined with his terrible lack of experience w/r/t foreign policy. But his talking to achmawhackjob will not produce the results he envisions.

Let me ask you this, would you feel comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapon capabilities? I’m not. And personally, I would support a military strike to prevent it.

[/quote]

He probably will talk to other folks than achmawhackjob. He doesn’t actually have power.

94

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Where did you hear that Israel is going to for certain bomb Iran?
[/quote]

Some type of market summary… I see a fair amount of financial stuff so I can’t remember which source it came from.

95

[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Where did you hear that Israel is going to for certain bomb Iran?

Some type of market summary… I see a fair amount of financial stuff so I can’t remember which source it came from.[/quote]

There was some discussion on Dianne Reams show on N.P.R…The consensus was Israel was going to start it; America would have to get involved because Israel does not have the capability to fight a long range war. And this would be done before George leaves office because George does not think Obama has the stomach for the fight

96

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Where did you hear that Israel is going to for certain bomb Iran?

Some type of market summary… I see a fair amount of financial stuff so I can’t remember which source it came from.

There was some discussion on Dianne Reams show on N.P.R…The consensus was Israel was going to start it; America would have to get involved because Israel does not have the capability to fight a long range war. And this would be done before George leaves office because George does not think Obama has the stomach for the fight
[/quote]

That’s interesting. So if Bush is convinced that Obama will win, he will initiate the war as a protective measure? Hmmm…Hitler did that after learning he had Parkinson’s, afraid no one eould have the balls or following to establish the Reich properly.

Interesting post!!

97

Here’s a news snippet about the issue… which appears to clarify “how” the statements were made:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080608/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_iran

98

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Where did you hear that Israel is going to for certain bomb Iran?

Some type of market summary… I see a fair amount of financial stuff so I can’t remember which source it came from.

There was some discussion on Dianne Reams show on N.P.R…The consensus was Israel was going to start it; America would have to get involved because Israel does not have the capability to fight a long range war. And this would be done before George leaves office because George does not think Obama has the stomach for the fight

That’s interesting. So if Bush is convinced that Obama will win, he will initiate the war as a protective measure? Hmmm…Hitler did that after learning he had Parkinson’s, afraid no one eould have the balls or following to establish the Reich properly.

Interesting post!!

[/quote]

Your response is the interesting post. Obama would not go out and fight we would probably have to back out of the fight after we destroyed Iran. I do not think there is a power that could stand up to America in the Traditional sense of combat.

99

[quote]100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Don’t forget his cap and trade program as well as his idea to raise taxes on the oil companies. The little guy is going to pay through the nose for both these things.

The costs will be such a drag on the economy it will make the current problems look like boom times.

yes and Bush’s tax cuts will stimulate the economy all the way to dead last.

Republicans say this stuff all the time and are always wrong, why not just stop saying it?

Also McCain for cap and trade.

100meters, I’m curious; in your opinion, where is the point of diminishing return w/r/t taxation? At what point do we as a state have too high of a tax rate.

Taxes are too high when growth becomes low from taxes hindering private enterprise. I can’t put a finger on the exact number, but historically it would certainly be higher than now.

Right now we have very slow growth and very low taxes. Historically those 2 have gone together.[/quote]

Where are you getting that nonsense from? Cap gains was cut in the 90’s by the Rep cong and reluctantly signed by Clinton against the wishes of the dems in congress.

There are 100 million people in the stock market. A low cap gains benefits everyone not just the rich. Who cares if some guy invests 10 mil of his own money and makes 10 mil. WHy should he have to fork over more than 15% to the gov.

He did not have to invest that money and put it at risk. But by doing so he created jobs. Jobs that were necessary to provide the goods and services for his venture or project. Where is the incentive for someone to risk his or her own money if the gov is going to claim 1/2 which is by the way, the real number that many dems would like to see on incomes above 250k.

We have had good growth during Bush’s term under very difficult circumstances as the beginning of his term was
not of his doing.

Also, we would not have high oil prices right now if we were drilling off the coasts and in ANWAR. But the dems and sadly McCain also are agsinst (McCain would leave the coasts up to the states) more drilling. We are not going to eliminate oil overnight so we have to increased supply now to keep oil inexpensive.

When will we learn that economies go up and down. The housing problem is not only a mortgage issue. It is also a supply issue. Too many spec houses were built by builders thinking it would continue to go on.

This is not Bush’s fault or anyone elses. It is the free market and it needs time to catch up. Excess inventories must me absorbed. In the same way I don’t blame Clinton for the falling markets in 2000. The dow lost over 25% and the nasdaq lost 50% in his last year. And I don’t remember the press croaking about the falling markets and throwing around the “R” word.

The only dem we have had growth under in the last 4 decades is CLinton and he had a Reb cong. Coincidence???

This idea of higher taxes historically leading to more growth is simply not true. Don’t act like there has been no growth in the last 8 yrs. No one can prevent economic downturns from periodically occuring - not even Obama the great.

100

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Don’t forget his cap and trade program as well as his idea to raise taxes on the oil companies. The little guy is going to pay through the nose for both these things.

The costs will be such a drag on the economy it will make the current problems look like boom times.

yes and Bush’s tax cuts will stimulate the economy all the way to dead last.

Republicans say this stuff all the time and are always wrong, why not just stop saying it?

Also McCain for cap and trade.

100meters, I’m curious; in your opinion, where is the point of diminishing return w/r/t taxation? At what point do we as a state have too high of a tax rate.

Taxes are too high when growth becomes low from taxes hindering private enterprise. I can’t put a finger on the exact number, but historically it would certainly be higher than now.

Right now we have very slow growth and very low taxes. Historically those 2 have gone together.

Where are you getting that nonsense from? Cap gains was cut in the 90’s by the Rep cong and reluctantly signed by Clinton against the wishes of the dems in congress.

There are 100 million people in the stock market. A low cap gains benefits everyone not just the rich. Who cares if some guy invests 10 mil of his own money and makes 10 mil. WHy should he have to fork over more than 15% to the gov. He did not have to invest that money and put it at risk. But by doing so he created jobs. Jobs that were necessary to provide the goods and services for his venture or project. Where is the incentive for someone to risk his or her own money if the gov is going to claim 1/2 which is by the way, the real number that many dems would like to see on incomes above 250k.

We have had good growth during Bush’s term under very difficult circumstances as the beginning of his term was
not of his doing.

Also, we would not have high oil prices right now if we were drilling off the coasts and in ANWAR. But the dems and sadly McCain also are agsinst (McCain would leave the coasts up to the states) more drilling. We are not going to eliminate oil overnight so we have to increased supply now to keep oil inexpensive.

When will we learn that economies go up and down. The housing problem is not only a mortgage issue. It is also a supply issue. Too many spec houses were built by builders thinking it would continue to go on. This is not Bush’s fault or anyone elses. It is the free market and it needs time to catch up. Excess inventories must me absorbed. In the same way I don’t blame Clinton for the falling markets in 2000. The dow lost over 25% and the nasdaq lost 50% in his last year. And I don’t remember the press croaking about the falling markets and throwing around the “R” word.

The only dem we have had growth under in the last 4 decades is CLinton and he had a Reb cong. Coincidence???

This idea of higher taxes historically leading to more growth is simply not true. Don’t act like there has been no growth in the last 8 yrs. No one can prevent economic downturns from periodically occuring - not even Obama the great.

[/quote]

I think that good growth you are speaking of is what we would call the Real estate boom. It is kind of like Clinton taking credit for the dot com boom