B.O. sure lost the debate!

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2008
B.O. sure lost the debate!
218
Fri, 09-26-2008 - 10:37pm

:)


mccain was on his mark. 

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2006
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 1:01pm

McCain was focusing all of his efforts on the crisis. Obama was making speeches.


Are you sure about that?

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 1:05pm

As the presidential nominee, each of these men should be the leader of their party. In my view, McCain accepted this responsibility and Obama abdicated it.

It seems that the Democrats were siding with the president on this and the Republicans were opposing him. Since it was the Republican party that was in opposition, it was up to McCain as the leader to help bring the Republicans to the table. He did the right thing - (even if he could have been less public about it).

Obama said, "Call me if you need me". That is not leadership. He thus admitted that he was not needed as the leader of his party during a crisis.

Also, hypocritically Harry Reid criticized John McCain for not being there, the DAY BEFORE he decided to suspend his campaign and come. Then the political ramifications were such that Reid had to do a 180 degree turnaround and try to make it look like McCain wasn't needed after all...

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-05-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 1:06pm



<>


That won't even cover 3% of his tax cuts.

 

 

Guild Member since 2009

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 1:09pm
Obama said, "Call me if you need me". That is not leadership. He is saying that he is not needed as the leader of his party during a time of crisis. So then, why is he running to be the President of the United States?
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2006
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 1:15pm

You keep saying that Obama and McCain are the leaders of their party.

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 1:15pm

Historically tax cuts have always increased revenues. Raising taxes decreases revenues.

August 13, 2003
The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
by Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.
WebMemo #327

There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy’s growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and “rich” taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden – a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates.

Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. In other words, when politicians attempt to “soak the rich,” the rest of us take a bath. Examining the three major United States episodes of tax rate reductions can prove useful lessons.

1) Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to “bracket creep,” the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:

At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.

2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.

The tax cuts of the 1920s
The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

The Reagan tax cuts
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

Harmful Spending & Complexity
Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm327.cfm

Here's something about the Bush Tax cuts:

WASHINGTON, July 12 - For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

Read the entire article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html




Edited 9/28/2008 4:23 pm ET by chillychillychilly
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 1:21pm

Not necessarily. In our government Congress has a distinct and independent role. A presidential candidate sets the broad tone, but they do not and should not be involved in orchestrating what Congress does.


In this case, a committee exists for the purpose of exploring financial issues. Letting it do its bipartisan work was the most constructive thing the candidates could do.


What McCain did was exactly as you suggest: automatically assume he is la grande fromage, when in fact he is but another Senator and a presidential candidate. He showed up his colleagues in both parties, colleagues who have some power and a will to use it in response to attempting to make them look like wayward children.



Full length fiction: worlds undone

"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 1:22pm

The president has a lot of influence in congress, especially with his own party, and DOES exercise his influence. (So, in essence, he does often "run on over to capitol hill and butt in).

It was the Democrats this time who were siding with the president. The Republicans were opposing him. It was John McCain's responsibility to bring those Republicans to the table behind the scenes to help work out a deal that could be accepted. He accepted that responsibility. That's what leaders do.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 1:26pm
Harry Reid is the only one who looks stupid, imo.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 1:28pm
I'd guess a lot of Americans think McCain did not act very presidential.

Full length fiction: worlds undone

"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson

Pages