-Totally fascinating look into how both sides think & see the issues ...
From: Stephen'08
Date: Sep 5, 2008 11:56 AM
Beth
As for Palin's speech, you obviously didn't catch the big part where she talked about creating high- paying jobs in energy, and educating the next generation for these high tech goals. She also talked at length about the tax code and its effects on small business in America (80 percent of ALL businesses are small businesses, accounting for 65 percent of our gdp)and how McCain wants to severely limit govt control and taxation on this important part of economic growth.
But I guess dems turn a deaf ear when their plans for socializing government and business are challenged by realistic goals and ideas...
-stephen
------------------------------------------------------
From: Beth
Date: Sep 5, 2008 1:50 PM
Stephen
I caught what she said ... it's just that on these issues the Democrats feel the same way ... Obama does NOT plan to increase small businesses' tax rates ... and he also intends to create lots of new higher paying jobs in energy & high tech industries ... the difference, however, is that Republicans have had full knowledge of this problem and eight years to address it, and haven't, so it's hard to believe what they say.
Beth
--------------------------------
From: Stephen'08
Date: Sep 5, 2008 4:17 PM
Beth
And I have read the ENTIRE Obama tax plan and he does tax small businesses (anyone making 150K a year or more) at a much higher rate than McCain is proposing. The fact is that the Dems MUST raise EVERYONE'S taxes to pay for the socialist state they are trying to create. And their constant lie about McCain's taxbreaks for his millionaire friends and businesses is becoming annoying and more obvious every day!
And in all honesty, you play the dem game pretty well, but not well enough. You said that "Palin had absolutely NO substance in her speech at all," but then turned it around and claimed what she said is the Dems' plan! Sounds substantive to me! Too bad its really NOT the Dems' plan.
If your party keeps this up, you will assure a McCain victory (which NONE of us wants)by pissing people off when distorting the facts. I strongly believe the American people can see through the "American Idolization" of Obama and use our best judgment in filtering the partisan bullshit coming from both sides. But until people begin to have civil and honest discussion- like you and i- then we risk making a HUGE mistake on election day.
Stephen
---------------------------------------
Stephen,
No I didn't ... my blog on Republican double-speak discusses the issues, but does not attribute any of the positions to anything that Palin said in her speech, it does refer to her at the very end but only as to her double-speak regarding the bridge to nowhere. Her speech did lack substance and you're free to watch it again for clarification.
As to your claims about the Obama tax plan hurting small businesses, that just false - according to the neutral factcheck.org:
"McCain has repeatedly claimed that Obama would raise tax rates for 23 million small-business owners. It's a false and preposterously inflated figure.
We find that the overwhelming majority of those small-business owners would see no increase, because they earn too little to be affected. Obama's tax proposal would raise rates only on couples making more than $250,000 or singles earning more than $200,000.
McCain argues that Obama's proposed increase is a job-killer. He has a point. It's true that increasing taxes on those at the top would leave them less money for other purposes, including investment and hiring in the case of business owners. But the number of business owners who would see their rates go up would be only a small fraction of what McCain says. Many would see their taxes go down."
For more detailed analysis and supporting authority, go to:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... _bunk.html
Here's Obama's plan directly from his website:
PLAN FOR RESTORING FISCAL DISCIPLINE
“The cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and states of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. . . . If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we'd see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.”
— Barack Obama, Speech in the U.S. Senate, March 13, 2006
The Problem
Increasing Debt: Under President Bush, the federal debt has increased from $5.7 trillion to $8.8 trillion, an increase of more than 50 percent.
Irresponsible Tax Cuts: President Bush's policies of giving tax breaks for the wealthy will cost the nation over $2.3 trillion by the time they expire in 2009.
Barack Obama's Plan
Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington
Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.
Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.
Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.
Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient: Obama will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. Obama will also increase the efficiency of government programs through better use of technology, stronger management that demands accountability and by leveraging the government's high-volume purchasing power to get lower prices.
End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program.
Make the Tax System More Fair and Efficient
End Tax Haven Abuse: Building on his bipartisan work in the Senate, Obama will give the Treasury Department the tools it needs to stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350 billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid.
Close Special Interest Corporate Loopholes: Obama will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry.
Barack Obama's Record
PAYGO: Obama voted in 2005, 2006, and 2007 to reinstate pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) federal budget rules.
No-Bid Contracts: Obama has introduced and helped pass bipartisan legislation to limit the abuse of no-bid federal contracts.
Against Raising the Federal Debt Limit: In 2006, Obama voted against misguided Republican efforts to raise the statutory debt limit at the same time the Republicans were pushing through massive debt-financed tax cuts for the wealthy.
NOTICE THAT NOTHING IN HIS PLAN ACTUALLY SAYS WHAT YOU'RE CLAIMING IT SAYS
Peace,
Beth
----------------------------------
From: Stephen'08
Date: Sep 5, 2008 5:51 PM
Beth
That quote from his site does not state the BUSINESS taxes he's supporting, which is at 150K. Now I know I'm from California, where the cost of living is ridiculously high, but taxing couples at even 250K is ridiculous and flies in the face of job creation and his claim of only taxing the "Billionaire Bush supporters," doesn't it??? It also makes it harder to correct the housing market if people can't afford their home because of taxes. I think its quite hilarious that your party wants to punish people who do their job and make something for themselves- only to be forced to give it away to those who refuse to do anything! Isn't success the AMERICAN DREAM? I guess under dems it will be a dream...
OK, my head hurts, but I luv ya for keeping me on my toes!
Stephen
--------------------------------
Stephen …
So send me some authority for this 150K tax on small businesses ... I can't find any & factcheck.org says it's not true. Hey, I sent you some authority supporting my position, turn about is fair play!
I don't have any sympathy for folks earning more than $200K or couples earning more than $250K whining and moaning about a slight tax increase ... if they think that's unfair, move to England!
If the Republican tickle down argument was really true, then we wouldn't be experiencing serious increases in the unemployment, mortgage, bankruptcy rates, causing less property tax revenues which have been causing local school districts across America to fire teachers and cut all sorts of school programs. Obama's plan will reduce income taxes for 95% of Americans - particularly the poor & middle class who need it most. That seems fair & reasonable. How is it not fair?
You can't cut everybody's taxes (even the rich) and run up the national debt by trillions and claim that such a plan is fiscally or morally responsible - yet, that is exactly what the Republicans have done & promise to do. The last Democratic administration balanced the budget AND improved the economy - most Americans were much better off.
Check ...
Beth
-------------------------------------------
From: Stephen'08
Date: Sep 6, 2008 1:18 PM
Beth
I was mistaken about the 150, but correct about the 250 getting a substantial increase. You should be concerned about this because it affects the entire economy. And I don't think its very American to penalize someone with tax burdens because they worked to be successful, while other suck from the teet of our nation. Its time to shrink the government to be almost non-existent in our lives and not bigger like the socialists, er, democrats want.
This is from 'Politico,' a liberal newspaper:
Let’s start with the definition of a “small business.” Most will tell you that small-business income constitutes income derived from sole proprietorships, partnerships and Subchapter S corporations.
The conservative argument (and that of the John McCain campaign) is that Obama’s stated plan to raise taxes on households making $250,000 or more in income is a tax increase on small business. The simple answer to this dilemma can be found in the IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin (Table 1.4, for those who are interested).
So what do the data say?
In 2006 (the latest year available), $706 billion of such income was reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Of this, about half was reported by households in the top marginal income tax rate. Interestingly, two-thirds of this income was reported by households making $250,000 per year or more — the very same households that Obama wants to increase taxes on.
The Obama campaign maintains that the number of small-business owners is what’s important. Economists know what matters is the tax rate that’s applied to the bulk of small-business income. Make no mistake about it: Obama’s plan to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000 will raise taxes on most small-business profits in America.
What type of tax rate are we talking about? Currently, S corporations face a top tax rate of 35 percent, while sole proprietors and general partners face a tax rate of 37.9 percent (since they’re responsible for paying both income tax and the Medicare component of the payroll tax).
Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.
Stephen
--------------------------------
Stephen,
First, Politico claims to be "neutral" ... they are certainly NOT liberal ... and in every interview I've ever seen with their talking heads on various networks, they seem quite conservative and/or to not know what they are talking about ...
Second, ... no increase on small businesses ... what you're talking about is an increase on net after expenses after deductions income of folks making more than $250,000 ... while that may be $706 billion (I think that number is highly inflated and the the bulletin says "such" income which is not defined as to exact source or meaning) ... it is only reasonable to expect that folks making more than $250,000, even if substantially less in number, are going to generate much more income than folks making less than $250,000 ... and there's no upper cap on those numbers, so we're also including income of millionaires and billionaires in arriving at that number ... nor do they say or document how many folks are in that bracket compared to the overall number of Americans - which most data shows is about 5% v. 95%. Most folks earning in the $200k-$300k range are going to find expenses and deductions or other offsets or ways to get them below the cap ... having been in that range when I was practicing law, I know that to be the case ... and if they don't, they are either idiots or don't have a good CPA.
Third, ... again ... I don't have any sympathy for folks with net after expense after deduction taxable income of greater than $250,000 whining and moaning about having to pay more in taxes ...
Fourth, ... politico has no data which shows that such targeted increases actually will result in less jobs or growth ... considering the vast increases in economic growth and job creation during the last Democratic administration, particularly compared with the dismal performance of the Republicans currently, I'm willing to take the risk ...
Fifth, ... I'm laughing at the suggestion that the Democrats want to make government bigger and the Republicans want to make it smaller ... the Democrats balanced the budget and grew the economy, the Republicans have left us with trillions in national debt and a wrecked economy ... why is it that when Republicans spend trillions on defense more than Democrats they don't see that as growing the government and government related expenses as a percentage of national income, and when Democrats spend a few million of the same trillions to feed children or provide education to veterans returning from war (which McCain opposes) AND cut millions and millions of unnecessary government spending out of defense and other areas (remember that was Al Gore's sole job in the last administration and he did it well), that Republicans claim that they are the party of less government and the
Democrats are the party of big government? It's just hilarious.
Of course, since you make more than $250,000 (I'm guessing) ... if I were married to you, I might see it differently too! (just kidding)
,Beth
---------------------------------
From: Stephen'08
Date: Sep 6, 2008 2:06 PM
Beth …
from The liberal Heritage Foundation:
Note: Representatives of the Obama campaign have
informed the authors that the campaign is not committed
to the full 12.4 hike in the payroll tax. An increase in
the payroll tax is merely one of many different tax
increases that are being considered for those making
over $250,000. The Obama campaign implies that the
tax increase on those earning over $250,000 may not be
limited to earnings but also cover different types of
income. Despite questioning, the campaign has not provided
any more details.
Presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama (D–Ill.)
has unveiled his economic plan of raising taxes on the
successful. His plan would boost the top marginal rate
to well over 55 percent—before the inclusion of state
and local taxes—resulting in many individuals seeing
their marginal tax rate double. The consequences of
this policy would be a return to the bad old days of tax
avoidance, with taxpayers disguising personal income
as business income or capital gains and the migration
of capital from the United States to abroad.
Among the more prominent elements of his tax
proposal, Senator Obama would end the Bush tax
cuts and allow the top two tax rates to return to 36
and 39.6 percent. He also would allow personal
exemptions and deductions to be phased out for
those with income over $250,000. The real kicker,
though, is that Senator Obama would end the Social
Security payroll tax cap for those over $250,000 in
earnings. (The cap is currently set at $102,000.)
These individuals will then face a tax rate of 15.65
percent from payroll taxes and the top income tax
rate of 39.6 percent for a combined top rate of over
56 percent on each additional dollar earned.
High-income individuals will be forced to pay
even more if they live in cities or states with high
taxes such as New York City, California, or Maryland.
These unlucky people would pay over twothirds
of each new dollar in earnings to the federal
government.
How the Obama Tax Plan Compares to Other
Countries. Senator Obama’s new tax rate would
give the United States one of the highest tax rates
among developed countries. Currently only six of
the top 30 industrial nations have a tax rate for all
levels of government combined of over 55 percent.
Under this tax plan, the United States would join
this group and have a higher top rate than such
high-tax nations as Sweden and Denmark. The top
marginal rate would exceed 60 percent with the
inclusion of state and local taxes, which means that
only Hungary would exceed Senator Obama’s new
proposed top tax rate.
The costs in economic terms of such high taxes
are real. For example, of the six countries with
higher tax rates than 55 percent, the average unemployment
rate is 7.35 percent (see Chart 1). This figure
includes Denmark, which appears to have a very
low unemployment rate of 3.9 percent. However,
Denmark spends over 5 percent of its GDP onunemployment programs and benefits,
thereby increasing its unemployment
rate.1
A Return to the Bad Old Days.
Historically, Senator Obama’s tax rate
would be the highest individual tax
rate since the Jimmy Carter days. Tax
shelters and tax avoidance strategies
were common when the top marginal
rate was 70 percent or higher. This
new top tax rate will again encourage
these gimmicks, reducing investment
and economic growth as resources are
squandered in an attempt to avoid punitive
taxation.1
Many individuals will attempt to
transfer their compensation from
wages to capital gains, since capital
gains would only be taxed at 25 percent,
or less than half of the top rate
on wages. This would put a great deal
of pressure on a company to do anything
it could to make its stock quickly increase in
value. Other individuals would try to incorporate so
they could pay business taxes instead of having to
pay taxes on their wages. Again, these resources
would be diverted away from more productive uses
and slow the economy.
High tax rates also encourage capital and income
flight to lower-taxed areas. There is ample evidence in
the United States of individuals and businesses moving
to states such as Florida or Delaware to take
advantage of their tax-friendly laws. A higher federal
tax rate would encourage individuals to move assets
abroad to take advantage of lower tax rates in countries
such as Canada, France, and Great Britain.
These high tax rates could also have a large
impact on the labor force. Many workers could
choose to reduce their hours or simply retire in the
face of such high taxation. Economists usually argue
a great deal about what effect minor changes in the
tax code will have on incentives to work. However,
the Obama plan calls for a tax increase so large that
economists will be focusing on the harm to the
overall economy rather than just the isolated effects
on labor and on capital.
A Finite Source of Revenue. Perhaps a larger
worry than the damage to the economy is the longrun
budget problem of the United States. While Senator
Obama raises taxes a great deal on upper
income individuals, the overall tax plan increases the
national deficit. As a result, the country will be even
less prepared to pay for current and future Social
Security and Medicare obligations. When money is
needed to pay for those programs, it will be hard to
tax the rich even more, given that the top rate will
already be so high. Instead, in order to pay the government’s
spending and entitlement shortfalls, taxes
would fall most heavily on middle-income Americans.
After all, even successful taxpayers are not an
infinite source of revenue.
—Rea S. Hederman, Jr., is a Senior Policy Analyst
and the Assistant Director, and Patrick Tyrrell is a
Research Assistant, in the Center for Data Analysis at
The Heritage Foundation.
Stephen
--------------------------
Stephen,
1. They admit right off the bat that they haven't confirmed or verified that Obama intends to enact a 12.4% payroll tax and that the Obama campaign has not issued any information saying they are going to do so. So really, any intelligent person could stop reading right there. This is pure fear-mongering speculation and nothing more.
2. The Heritage Foundation is an ultra-conservative ultra-right wing think tank ... who claims it's "mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies." One of their primary purposes is to promote supply-side economics theory that reduction of marginal tax rates can spur economic growth -- a postulate that has not proven to be true when attempted by the current Republican leadership and in fact, when combined with their other policy initiatives, has proved to be disasterous on the American economy.
Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13185.html
"Obama has also discussed cutting corporate tax rates and increasing the child tax exemption. (So has McCain). Call this one a draw.
Although McCain has said before that he would extend the 2001 Bush tax cuts — even though he opposed them at the time — he didn’t mention such an extension in his speech. It was a startling omission because Republicans routinely tout those cuts as the signature fiscal policy success of the Bush administration. Obama has promised to keep most of those cuts, save for those benefiting the top 5 percent of wage earners."
Politico:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12961.html
The details of how an Obama administration would actually govern the country were slightly more centrist than the blueprints that audiences heard early in the primary campaign.
When Obama released his plan for a tax cut this summer, for example, it cut deeper and broader than the one he’d discussed in the primary — an apparent adjustment to the general election audience and a Clintonesque attempt to seize a traditionally Republican issue.
"I will cut taxes — cut taxes — for 95 percent of all working families," Obama said. "Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."
Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13122.html
"The next president must address long-postponed budget and tax questions. And the gap between the McCain and Obama tax plans is so large at the high income brackets that it’s very difficult to square the Republican plan with McCain’s call for wartime sacrifice and service."
Politico:
Text of Obama Acceptance Speech -
"For over two decades, he’s (McCain has) subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy — give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is you’re on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps — even if you don’t have boots. You’re on your own. Well, it’s time for them to own their failure. It’s time for us to change America. You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country. We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma. We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was president — when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of down $2,000 like it has under George Bush."
"It’s a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers and play by the rules of the road."
"Change means a tax code that doesn’t reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it. Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America. I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow. I will cut taxes — cut taxes — for 95 percent of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."
Frankly ... I could not find anything else of substance on Politico's website searching their database of archived articles that really discussed tax increases or Obama's tax plan or taxes in general, and certainly nothing that sounded like the analysis you claimed came from them in your last e-mail - perhaps you could send me a direct link.
And, if you notice - Obama said that he will "eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow" and that he will "I will start giving them (tax breaks) to companies that create good jobs right here in America." This does not sound like a plan that will hurt small business or result in less job creation or higher unemployment rates, --unlike like the policies the Republicans have implemented and want to continue which had exactly that negative effect on our economy.
Beth
---------------------------------------------
From: Stephen'08
Date: Sep 7, 2008 9:30 AM
Beth,
I'm really tired of this conversation. Your lawyer training has you ignoring the facts and emphasizing that which has nothing to do with the glaring problems with his tax plan. And you even admitted that you don't have any sympathy for people making 250K. That statement in itself disqualifies you and any Obama supporter from having any objectivity. To deny someone the fruits of their labors because you think they make too much is quite frankly un-American in the truest sense of the word. This is the land of the free, land of opportunity and a place where anyone who works can attain their own wealth. The dems were very clever at hiding their socialist ideology concerning the re-distribution of wealth during the primaries when no one was listening. But those of us who are listening will be reminding people that Obama is not Robin Hood, but his policies and plans will certainly rob my children of their rightful inheritance and place in society. Good luck getting your Caesar elected.
Stephen
-------------------------------------------
Stephen
So how do you propose that we pay off trillions of dollars in national debt? How do you propose that we finance this expensive war?
Should we do it on the backs of those least able to afford it?
My real preference is that there not to be ANY taxation, but since we have a government & since the current Republican administration has taken us from a balanced budget to trillions in debt, we have to pay for it. If you require the poor and middle class to do so at the same rate as the wealthy ... then that effectively has a regressive effect because the reality is that the poor and mille-class have considerably less disposable income with which to do so. Further study after study have shown that doing so has a drastically negative effect on the economy.
So why should the poor have to pay the same rate as those making more than $250K when they have far less disposable income with which to do so (ie. If they make $15,000/year almost all of it goes to necessary items like housing, utilities & food w/ not a lot left over).
The type of plan you favor keeps the poor poor and keeps the rich getting richer and only increases the growing gap between the classes. I frankly would like to see an end to poverty - if you've ever been poor then you know how much it sucks & how difficult it is to get out of ... and, I have been there ... and may soon be there again ...
Beth
---------------------------------
From: Stephen'08
Date: Sep 7, 2008 10:56 AM
Beth
First off, the plan I favor, the flat- tax plan, will never be passed as long as the dems have the need to keep their constituency intellectually challenged and on public social programs. Their poorest voters aren't even taxed! If you make your example of 15,000, you're below the poverty line and don't pay a <a href="http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vZGltZS5Tbw==">dime. So</a> the lies your party keep putting out there are transparent.
Second, trying to blame the President for everything is an old and tired strategy. The President doesn't create tax laws or the deficit. THAT is the purview of Congress, which, last time I looked, has been under dem control for two years and has done not a damn thing about the budget, taxes, energy and the deficit. oh wait- they did reauthorize the tax cuts they now say is horrible and not their faults. Tell that to a couple with two small kids who got back 2500 bucks. And they gave millions of their voters back money that wasn't theirs to begin with to further perpetuate their myth of a failing economy. Giving money away that the govt doesn't have. Now thats what I call deficit spending!
I'm not an undereducated, poor hillbilly who clings to my guns and religion. I don't buy the bullshit.
Stephen
-----------------------------
Stephen ...
Gosh, ... make it $20,000 or $25,000 or $30,000 ... the point is that folks earning at the lowest rung of the tax bracket are the least able to afford paying taxes at the same rate as those at the highest rung just so the folks at the highest rungs can delude themselves into thinking the system is fair! You totally fail to respond to my questions -- how are we going to pay off the debt? How are we going to pay for the war? Why should those with far less income and much. much less disposable income share an equal burden in doing so? So that the weatlhy can drive a Lexus and go from their vacation home back to their house with more bedrooms than they can actually use in a day?
Last time I checked ... neither party actually controls the Senate or have even over the past two years and that's why the Dems can't get anything accomplished ... in additional to President Bush's veto power. It's naive to think that the President doesn't have any influence on tax or economic policy ... he proposes the budget, he appoints the Treasury and Federal Reserve executives, he & his party proposed and passed the tax plan that is currently in place - that has resulted in the abysmal economic situation that we now find ourselves.
(BTW-It was the President who proposed the rebate (that was hard for any Senator or House Member to vote against regardless of party affiliation since they all have to answer to their constituents back in their districts & states). You're right, seemed irresponsible in light of the huge national debt & mind-boggling war spending for which the Republicans are responsible. Not that any us of us mind getting $).
Beth
------------------------
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Stephen'08
Date: Sep 8, 2008 10:28 AM
1. The dems have controlled BOTH houses of congress since 2006. You should know this. Think Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D- NEV. So ya can't blame inactivity on the GOP this time and you know that!
2. The question was about Obama's tax hikes- NOT all the other things you listed. Stay on topic, please. You know by now distraction doesn't work with me...
3.NEWS FLASH!!! Obama said just YESTERDAY that he would consider extending the BUSH TAX CUTS!!!! Talk about a candidate pandering!!! LOL
Beth, I am not supporting either candidate. I've said this time and time again. The National debt hasn't been honestly or realistically addressed by either side. Neither has illegal immigration, border and port security, social security insolvency and energy and infrastructure. BOTH sides are pandering to their base, but Obama and the Dems are just ridiculous in their defense of their own policy proposals as "not Bush." No, they're not Bush, but a brand of socialism that would eventually destroy our Constitution and freedoms- those same freedoms they pretend to want for everyone (unless you're a woman who doesn't agree with them).
The reason I initially came to the defense of Sarah Palin is because of the stupid personal attacks the media took on her. In my opinion, we've got three failed senators lying about their achievements, and then Palin- the ONLY one on a ticket with real executive experience and policies that are closer to Reagan, the reason I was a Republican for many years. She is honest and real about the national politick and should be the TOP of that ticket. But alas...
Its time for us to stop allowing the two- party system to control the conversation. Its time we stop allowing the liberal media to focus on one candidate instead of all the others. Its time we change the voting age back to 25, so the snot-nosed kids we see protesting everything in existence will be forced to graduate from their communist- indoctrinated universities and live in the real world and pay taxes and contribute- instead of allowing their factless positions to destroy the very fabric of our society. Its time we as Americans get serious about the Nation's future and stop worrying about what other countries think of us. This is my manifesto. Whats yours???
-----------------
Stephen ...
1. Harry Reid is the Majority Leader in the Senate - as to that you are correct. BUT THE CURRENT SENATE IS DIVIDED 49 DEMOCRATS, 49 REPUBLICANS AND 2 INDEPENDENTS - AND ONE OF THOSE INDEPENDENTS IS JOE LIEBERMAN WHO JUST SPOKE AT THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION. ... No wonder the Dems can't get anything through!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_Unit ... s_Congress
2. Maybe you are distracted because I definitely was not "off-topic" ... we are talking about Obama's tax plan - tax hikes if you like. The REASON for any increase on those with net income over $250,000 is to provide a tax cut to the poor and middle-class making less than that. Tax policy must consider its effect on the economy & the national debt. Which is why the current Republican plan (or even a flat tax) fails. Obama's plan seeks a fair tax structure which can balance the budget and put the country back on the right economic course.
--You NEVER seem to address any of the points I challenge you to ... (just re-read our e-mails if you need a reminder on what they were).
3. I think that's correct as to some of the Bush tax cuts ... just not as to the wealthy or companies shipping US jobs overseas, etc., and none of this is inconsistent with the plan on his website I forwarded to you.
As to the rest of your e-mail, be serious. Palin at the top of the ticket? She would have never survived the primary season. And she only has less than 2 years experience as a Governor and her performance in Alaska is not particularly good.* She's involved herself in several ethics scandals both as mayor and as Governor, and is still under investigation. That would be great-she get's elected & is found guilty. Most reasonable people simply don't want to take that risk. Additionally she's much farther right than Bush/Cheney on most issues. *Time/CNN: http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic ... 18,00.html
Read the article -- "honest and real" couldn't be farther from the truth!
As to immigration & border security, I'm in favor of increased border security, but think fences are unrealistic and way too expensive; I also really object, as a civil rights lawyers, to all the outright prejudice and racial bias spewed by Republican advocates of immigration reform. The Republicans want the ability to use social security funds to pay budget items, while the Democrats want to protect the safety of the fund. As to energy the Dems have proposed all sorts of considered proposals designed to make America greener and less dependent. The Republicans have finally done so too, but they would allow much more pollution by industry (less pollution control regulations because a lot of those business contribute significant amounts to Republican coffers), they don't believe that global warming is an actual concern (Palin just flat out says this & Bush/Cheney alter scientific reports saying it is), AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, the Republicans have had the past 8 years to do something about this and have done nothing but make it worse!!! Why don't you just read Obama's plan on these issues & see what you think for yourself than believing all the hype ...
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Excerpts from Obama's plan on Immigration:
“The time to fix our broken immigration system is now… We need stronger enforcement on the border and at the workplace… But for reform to work, we also must respond to what pulls people to America… Where we can reunite families, we should. Where we can bring in more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we should”
— Barack Obama, Statement on U.S. Senate Floor, May 23, 2007
Create Secure Borders
Obama wants to preserve the integrity of our borders. He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.
Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants; Crack Down on Employers: Obama championed a proposal to create a system so employers can verify that their employees are legally eligible to work in the U.S.
As to his Energy plan and contrasting it with McCain's, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1A8dLkRWM
Now if you read the plans, watch the video, & still find room to disagree with what Obama's actual plan is, then we can discuss the specifics.
Beth
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Stephen'08
Date: Sep 8, 2008 5:13 PM
BOTH Independent Senators caucus with the dems, giving them control. In your second paragraph of the email I was responding to, you mentioned a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with Obama's tax plan. Thats why I responded the way I did. As for his tax plan, I am still correct in my assertion of his business and payroll tax hikes. There's nothing in any of his text that is to the contrary of that. But if you wanna keep quoting Time magazine and CNN, go right ahead. Their journalistic integrity has been thrown out the window with this campaign and even their own staffers know it. You also keep listing blogs and websites that bash Bush, but don't offer ANY FACTS to support their wild claims. Blogging is great, but more often than not, these blogs don't offer evidence or fact- just wild accusations aimed at tricking the reader into thinking its legitimate. Its not, and thats Obama's problem. Now that the scrutiny of his b.s. is by the American people, the cheap tactics that worked to steal the nomination from Clinton won't work with the majority.
Now, as to your vitriol towards Palin; knock it off. She is a governor- more than Obama can say. She actually works, unless you wanna call the Obama Tour '08 work. I don't. And the people of our country won't accept your complete mischaracterizations of her either. Thats obvious by the way she has climbed in the polls! THAT even you can't deny.
If you wanna talk immigration, then we can totally do that. But I will not allow you to say that anyone who disagrees with you is a racist. I grew up in Southern California and have seen the devastating effects of unfettered illegal immigration and I want it to stop. Not because I am in any way racist, but because it has destroyed Cali's economy, infrastructure, education and hospital system. The fact that these people have broken the law by being here is completely dismissed by the lawyers making a buck off their precarious situations. Its time to enforce the federal laws that already exist and get them to their home countries and let them enter the correct, legal way if there are jobs they can fill.
But thats another whole blog!!! I'm down!!!
TTYL …
---------
Stephen ...
You're sort of a frustrating person to have a discussion or argument with because you never address counter-positions directly and keep changing your positions. Example, ... you claim neither party has addressed immigration, I send you Obama's plan which is contrary to your claims and beliefs and rather than admitting that you don't have any problem with what he says he will do, you simply change the subject. You talk about your frustration with energy issues, I send you Obama's speech on the subject, and rather than listening to it and specifically noting what you agree or don't agree with, you simply choose not to respond. It's just obvious that no matter what the Democrats say, EVEN WHERE YOU AGREE WITH IT, that your mind is closed.
That the independents "caucus" with the Dems is just a bullshit response, ... Lieberman is campaigning for McCain, spoke at the Republican convention, and has voted against the Democrats on quite a few critical issues - many of which you cite as the source of your frustration about nothing getting done.
I'm sure that I have not cited ANY blogs in ANY of my responses to you. Citing factcheck.org or the Obama website (as to what his plan actually is when you misrepresent it) or to a neutral news source as to facts, is not citing to any "blog." The reality is that when I ask you to support your positions, you either can't (such as the 150k claim) or cite to very biased conservative sources such as The Heritage Foundation (which you called liberal - which I'm sure they would find very insulting).
You keep claiming that Palin's Governor makes her the best experienced candidate in the race - not even John McCain would agree with that statement. She has been a Governor for less than 2 years and her performance is not particularly great - I cite you a CNN article with accounts from people with actual knowledge - and you just wildly claim CNN is biased - which does not in any way address or discount the facts stated by the folks with actual knowledge that they quote. Further, it's just a myth that Governors or CEOs make better Presidents, or that Senators can't make great Presidents - JFK was a Senator and NEVER was a Governor. Richard Nixon was a Governor before becoming President and one of the worst Presidents in US history. You're argument Governors are qualified and Senators aren't is silly because it means McCain is a bad choice too. And the reality is that YOU personally don't know anything about Palin or her record or her performance or her position on the issues!!!
Yes, Palin has energized the Republican base, fundamentalists, and has resulted in a swing in support by white female voters. It would be nice if voters actually studied the issues and voted accordingly, but they don't always do that ... there is plenty of time left before November, and I'm confident that if folks vote on the issues Obama should win.
I didn't say you were a racist. But you cannot deny that a significant number of Republicans supporting strict immigration reform legislation made highly offensive and insensitive statements when publicly speaking about this issue. It is a highly charged issue. I sent you Obama's actual statements/plan about immigration, and I don't think that you actually disagree with anything that he actually says ... if you do, let me know specifically what you disagree with & we can talk. And, btw, it says Obama does want stricter enforcement of laws making it illegal for employers to hire illegal aliens - which will eliminate the biggest incentive for them wanting to cross the border - too bad the Republicans currently in charge don't actively enforce that law.
It would be nice if you actually responded directly to each point ...
Beth