McCain's trend

[Drew Dowdell]

I know! if we really want to address health care at this time, we should wait until we have this deficit settled. tieing up 10% (and increasing daily) of our budget into interest is crazy. Additional government programs really need to be put on hold until this is all repaid IMO, the public won't want to hear it, but then again most of the public doesn't understand the ramifications of this in the long run.

EDIT:: You know Olds, the more we argue the more i come to think that we both really want the same exact thing, we just have different ideas of how to get there.

Of course we want the same thing. We want prosperity and the ability to grow beyond ourselves. We want a healthy populace and fair taxes.

What I disagree with is the idea that we need to continue to shovel money to the wealthy in order to get there. 80 years of this and we have financial crisis after crisis. Know who has the most stable economies? Those pinko, tree-huggin, socialist Dutch and Scandinavian countries. We have massive wealth disparity and it's getting worse. If we continue at this rate, in 10 years the wealthy will get another tax cut and in the same bill the rest of us will be offered cake. Japan has a VERY progressive tax system, their CEOs make a 10th of what ours do... yet that tiny little country is kicking our ass economically!

What I don't understand is why the conservatives can't seem to grasp the reverse of the theories they propose. If you spend money to make the middle classes wealthier, then they'll have money to purchase things. The middle class are the bulk of the purchasing power who buy computers (Dell, HP, Microsoft), new cars, (GM, Chrysler, Ford), food (Purdue, Sysco), and pay their mortgages on time (Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Wells Fargo, any bank EVAR).

So, Paris Hilton may have to have only two Bentley Continental GTs instead of 3, but if that makes the occupancy rate at Hilton Hotel increase by 10%, doesn't that work out better for her in the long run?

You espouse "supply side" so vehemently, but if the "demand" isn't there, all the supply in the world isn't going to help you. If you create a "demand", prices will increase until more supply follows.

[siegen]

I found a leaked image of Obama as a teenager.

Now that I have the men in tights song stuck in all of your heads, my work here is complete.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Of course we want the same thing. We want prosperity and the ability to grow beyond ourselves. We want a healthy populace and fair taxes.

What I disagree with is the idea that we need to continue to shovel money to the wealthy in order to get there. 80 years of this and we have financial crisis after crisis. Know who has the most stable economies? Those pinko, tree-huggin, socialist Dutch and Scandinavian countries. We have massive wealth disparity and it's getting worse. If we continue at this rate, in 10 years the wealthy will get another tax cut and in the same bill the rest of us will be offered cake. Japan has a VERY progressive tax system, their CEOs make a 10th of what ours do... yet that tiny little country is kicking our ass economically!

What I don't understand is why the conservatives can't seem to grasp the reverse of the theories they propose. If you spend money to make the middle classes wealthier, then they'll have money to purchase things. The middle class are the bulk of the purchasing power who buy computers (Dell, HP, Microsoft), new cars, (GM, Chrysler, Ford), food (Purdue, Sysco), and pay their mortgages on time (Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Wells Fargo, any bank EVAR).

So, Paris Hilton may have to have only two Bentley Continental GTs instead of 3, but if that makes the occupancy rate at Hilton Hotel increase by 10%, doesn't that work out better for her in the long run?

You espouse "supply side" so vehemently, but if the "demand" isn't there, all the supply in the world isn't going to help you. If you create a "demand", prices will increase until more supply follows.

Well on the flip side, Keynesian economics didn't exactly do wonders for us from the 60s to "supply side" Regan era. Plus, American culture is far different than Japanese, In Japan, if the CEO fails, they take that as a hit to their personal honor. If an American CEO fails, he takes his severance pay and merrily hops off to find another company to ruin.

This is taken off a Netherlands website, their income tax is BRUTAL:

The tax rate is a rising scale with four brackets. The rates are (2008):

*

33.60% on the first EUR 17,579

*

41.85% on the next EUR 14,010

*

42% on the next EUR 22,271

*

52% on the remainder

The 33.60% rate consists of 2.45% tax and 31.15% social security contributions, the second rate consists of 10.70% tax and 31.15% social security contributions, whilst the 42% and 52% rates consist solely of tax. A rate of 15.70% (first rate) and 23.95% (second rate) is applicable to people aged 65 and over, as they are no longer liable for several social security contributions.

Tax rate for income from substantial interest (box 2)

There is a fixed rate of 25%.

Tax rate for income from savings and investment (box 3)

There is a fixed rate of 30%.

So that means that if we had that here in the USA, by the time we made about 32,500 bucks we would be in the top income tax bracket. I am not familiar with their other taxes (i assume they have a property tax too). Although... we pay about 15% into SS/FICA + 25% for middle class... thats 40%. Eh... they must have some other revenues from somewhere. and 35%+15% = 50%. So... basically increasing the taxes on OUR wealthiest puts them at a potentially GREATER disadvantage than those who live in the Netherlands... without me knowing what other tax laws they have. It appears they also have a "wage tax" although i dont see any numbers for it, nor understand how its different than an income tax.

Heres some Dutch corporation tax code.

Rate (last update 3 January 2008)

2008: 20% over the first € 40,000, 23% over the next € 160,000 and 25.5% over the rest

2007: 20% over the first € 25,000, 23.5% over the next € 35,000 and 25.5% over the rest.

2005: 27% over the first € 22,689, 31% over the rest

2006: 25.5% over the first € 22,689, 29.6% over the rest

See also tax news for the 2008 details.

Reason why the rates have been reduced is of course the current situation within the EU. New member states often have lower rates but also Ireland is offering low rates. For an impression of these rates up to 2005 see the table with rates for all the member states.

Dividends

Dividends are currently taxed at a rate of 15%.

::EDIT:: looking at the website im getting this off of, this may only be for foreigners who reside in the netherlands and not citizens... im somewhat confused.

Additionally, i do understand that demand drives supply. However, i don't approve of taking one mans money and giving it to another because "they need it." Like i said, if the great masses of Americans want better pay, Unionize! But it will still contribute to driving up costs, so in the end, whats the point?

I think the best approach lies somewhere in the middle between Demand Side and Supply side. Your ideas have merit to them, and supply-side has some merit to it too. Just like on health care both sides have SOME MERIT to them.

I suppose theoretically having higher taxes across the board could POSSIBLY lead to lower inflation rates, because people simply don't have as much money which means things need to cost less for them to be able to afford it. If that is the case, then there really is a net zero sum in the long run (other than the government not having a debt). But the government must maintain responsibility because if it decides to spend it, it may create rather vast inflation very quickly.

Edited September 22, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Drew Dowdell]

Well on the flip side, Keynesian economics didn't exactly do wonders for us from the 60s to "supply side" Regan era. Plus, American culture is far different than Japanese, In Japan, if the CEO fails, they take that as a hit to their personal honor. If an American CEO fails, he takes his severance pay and merrily hops off to find another company to ruin.

This is taken off a Netherlands website, their income tax is BRUTAL:

So that means that if we had that here in the USA, by the time we made about 32,500 bucks we would be in the top income tax bracket. I am not familiar with their other taxes (i assume they have a property tax too). Although... we pay about 15% into SS/FICA + 25% for middle class... thats 40%. Eh... they must have some other revenues from somewhere. and 35%+15% = 50%. So... basically increasing the taxes on OUR wealthiest puts them at a potentially GREATER disadvantage than those who live in the Netherlands... without me knowing what other tax laws they have.

But they get free health care, cheap transportation, some of the best education <11th grade here doesn't even count for credit there), etc etc etc.

Right now, the "demand side" countries with the exception of Britain, are fairing much better than the supply siders.

edit: Unionization without some domestic protections will just lead to more offshoring.

[gm4life]

My point was, they are both old and senile.

Gotcha PCS. McCain isn't that bad. Some excellent debating has gone on in here since I last left.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

edit: Unionization without some domestic protections will just lead to more offshoring.

i think you may have misread what i showed. Our income/SS taxes are roughly EQUAL to theirs. So unless they have some pretty insane sales tax or property tax, their people are effectively being taxed less than ours and yet have government "services". This would tell me that A) their government is ran as efficient as a company, or B) we would be better off with a 3rd grader managing our governments spending.

But they get free health care, cheap transportation, some of the best education <11th grade here doesn't even count for credit there), etc etc etc.

Right now, the "demand side" countries with the exception of Britain, are fairing much better than the supply siders.

The operative words being "right now"

This was not the case for much of the last half century. Speaking of employment, this little article does a nice job discussing it. http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2...lead_us_to.html just to warn you this is a supply side guy. He is not a Keynesian guy.

And just watch, the poor US economy is generally what drives global markets, if we fall into a recession they probably will or will fare very very low growth.

And to your response about unionization, yes that is true, but protections almost always hurt more than they help. So what say you to that?

Unfortunately, while this little bail-out by the non-fiscally-conservative Bush administration may have saved our little behinds in the stock market, it has also opened up the possibility that our GOVERNMENT COULD DEFAULT. Now, essentially, the government is going to buy extremely high risk securities. It is still POSSIBLE that these securities may yield a possible cash flow. If that is the case (or they turn out to only loose a little) in the end it wouldn't really have cost the government very much or perhaps they could have made money on the deal (which could be a nice sum of cash).

However, literally all these securities are worthless at the moment and are thus illiquid. If these securities end up to be truly worthless, then we are in for a world of hurt.

So now, more than ever, It should be the goal of our next president not so much on social issues (They will still be there once things are A-OK) but for economic issues. Deficit reduction will be vital. Whoever becomes president must realize this. They must also realize that increased government spending to "fix" the economy probably wont work (at least not if you want to create lots of new jobs, if you only want some new jobs then sure). They will have to cut government spending and begin to reduce the debt before it consumes us.

Edited September 22, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

A little McCain quote.

"Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation" -John McCain

Hmmm... McCain calling for REGULATIONS on Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac? What??

Obama has been receiving money from Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. There's change we can believe in!

Perhaps its possible, just possible, that if congress had listened to this commission, this current crisis could have at least somewhat been eased or possibly averted.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[loki]

You espouse "supply side" so vehemently, but if the "demand" isn't there, all the supply in the world isn't going to help you. If you create a "demand", prices will increase until more supply follows.

define create.....

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=aSKSoiNbnQY0

nice little bloomberg article on the current financial crisis. [and yes i know the guy who wrote it works on the McCain campaign, but the facts that he presents are true, after doing a bit of research on other sites, they mesh up together, of course there are opinions in it, but the mere facts are true]

Little page from the whitehouse.gov website citing the concern over the matter over the years.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0080919-15.html

And heres the tail end of a little article written in 2005 in regards to the Bill proposed by the Senate Banking Committee and co-sponsored by McCain by Peter J. Wallison entitled Regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

The Critical Final Step

After years of trimming around the edges of the GSE problem, Congress--with the help of Chairman Alan Greenspan--has finally come to the nub of the issue. If Congress can bring itself to overcome the furious political opposition of the GSEs and their supporters, it will direct the new GSE regulator to reduce the size of Fannie's and Freddie's portfolios and endorse a workable standard by which to measure the proper size of the smaller portfolios that result. This will solve, finally, the problem of two entities using their implicit government backing to control the residential mortgage market, which creates massive risks for the taxpayers and the economy in general.

If Congress cannot take this essential step, however, no amount of additional authority--given to a purported "world class regulator"--will significantly change the course of events. Fannie and Freddie will continue to grow, and one day--as Alan Greenspan has predicted--there will be a massive default with huge losses to the taxpayers and systemic effects on the economy. We should be grateful that Congress finally has before it a serious proposal that is equal to the seriousness of the problem. But we should also worry about whether Congress can find within itself the political will necessary to see the task through to its logical conclusion.

Unfortunately, Democrats believed that this was a partisan issue and vehemently opposed it (along with some greedy Republicans) which ultimately lead to this bill not gaining traction.

So lets recap: Bush has been calling for regulations on Fannie and Freddie. McCain has been cosponsor of a bill that would allow Freddie and Fannie to be controlled and brought in line. Democrats seem to have been opposed to this bill (as well as a few Republicans). This bill could have prevented Freddie and Fannie from folding, it could have stopped the domino effect on Bears and Sterns as well as other financial institutes.

So everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else, we are taking some very... non-capitalist... methods to rectifying this situation. Fiscal responsibility is lost upon this administration and the last congresses of the past 8 years. Of course, we still have time to bail out of this plan... but who knows.

But one thing is for certain: This current economic crisis was caused by democrats who decided to make this a partisan issue back in 2005.

Would you really trust the ones who ruined the economy to fix it? I don't think so.

Take your time and let this sink in. There is no debating the facts, this is clear cut. This was NOT due to McCain deregulating the finance industry. This was due to partisan politics. It's okay, we all make mistakes, hell even i figured this was all Bush's fault not more than a few days ago, but then i started doing a bit of research and it became crystal clear.

That being said im still 100000000% against Bush and his current socialist government rescue of our financial industry

One other thing, Clinton, the Democrats Holy Grail of economic policy. Was decidedly conservative in his policies, sure he raised taxes, but everything else the man did was financially considerably conservative. as long as the government can restrain itself fiscally, conservative economics work well.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Drew Dowdell]

Obama has been receiving money from Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. There's change we can believe in!

Interesting...

Obama is the largest individual recipient at about $112,000, federal campaign finance reports show.

One reason Obama has collected the most is that he has raised far more than any other federal candidate, $390 million so far. The mortgage money has not influenced Obama's stands, a campaign aide said.

The candidate has "consistently supported stepped-up regulation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure that instead of rewarding speculators who relied on the government to reap massive profits, taxpayers and struggling homeowners are protected," the aide said.

Republican nominee John McCain has taken $16,400 from Freddie and Fannie employees since 2005. McCain campaign manager Rick Davis is past president of the Homeownership Alliance, an advocacy group whose members included Freddie and Fannie. In that role, he defended the companies against increased regulation.

What is more interesting is McCain's top donor list v. Obama's top donor list.

McCain

Merrill Lynch $298,413

Citigroup Inc $269,251

Morgan Stanley $233,272

Goldman Sachs $208,395

JPMorgan Chase & Co $179,975

AT&T Inc $174,487

Blank Rome LLP $150,426

Credit Suisse Group $150,025

Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,787

UBS AG $140,165

PricewaterhouseCoopers $140,120

US Government $137,617

Bank of America $129,475

Wachovia Corp $122,846

Lehman Brothers $117,500

FedEx Corp $113,453

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $104,250

US Army $103,613

Bear Stearns $99,300

Pinnacle West Capital $97,700

Obama

Goldman Sachs $691,930

University of California $611,207

Citigroup Inc $448,599

JPMorgan Chase & Co $442,919

Harvard University $435,769

Google Inc $420,174

UBS AG $404,750

National Amusements Inc $389,140

Microsoft Corp $377,235

Lehman Brothers $370,524

Sidley Austin LLP $350,302

Moveon.org $347,463

Skadden, Arps et al $340,264

Time Warner $338,527

Wilmerhale Llp $335,398

Morgan Stanley $318,070

Latham & Watkins $297,400

Jones Day $289,476

University of Chicago $278,885

Stanford University $276,038

You'd think those left wing institutions, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley would all be worried about Obama's tax plan turning the U.S. into a welfare state and aborting their babies.....

[Drew Dowdell]

But one thing is for certain: This current economic crisis was caused by democrats who decided to make this a partisan issue back in 2005.

Absolutely, positively, completely, utterly incorrect.

1st the cancer was well established and metastasized by 2005.

2nd McCain proposing regulation on Fannie and Freddie at that point is like him suggesting a new lock on the chicken coupe after he let the foxes in to have dinner.

3rd Fannie and Freddie aren't the cause, merely the symptom.

[Drew Dowdell]

define create.....

I know you're against any government handouts of any form, but where I'm going with this is, if the government is going to hand out $700,000,000,000 to keep the economy going. It would be better off handing it to the middle class. That money would "create" a demand that would trickle up through the economy. People could pay their mortgages. Investment banks wouldn't need bailing out.

[Drew Dowdell]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=aSKSoiNbnQY0

nice little bloomberg article on the current financial crisis. [and yes i know the guy who wrote it works on the McCain campaign, but the facts that he presents are true, after doing a bit of research on other sites, they mesh up together, of course there are opinions in it, but the mere facts are true]

Take your time and let this sink in. There is no debating the facts, this is clear cut. This was NOT due to McCain deregulating the finance industry. This was due to partisan politics. It's okay, we all make mistakes, hell even i figured this was all Bush's fault not more than a few days ago, but then i started doing a bit of research and it became crystal clear.

I think you need to go a bit further back in history. That Bloomberg article is political hackery that ignores financial history prior to 2001. NONE of this would have been possible without the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act.

[loki]

I know you're against any government handouts of any form, but where I'm going with this is, if the government is going to hand out $700,000,000,000 to keep the economy going. It would be better off handing it to the middle class. That money would "create" a demand that would trickle up through the economy. People could pay their mortgages. Investment banks wouldn't need bailing out.

so you're talking about a fountain of money instead of rain. lol just funny analogy.

i still think >75% of people would spend "free" money irresponsibly. just like how the $300-$1200 or more "tax return" was prolly spent buying "junk" instead more needed things...>75% of the time.

[Drew Dowdell]

Supposedly, most people spent their rebate on gasoline, household bills, and porn.....but in my case, I'm talking about an ongoing reduction in taxes for the middle class.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

I think you need to go a bit further back in history. That Bloomberg article is political hackery that ignores financial history prior to 2001. NONE of this would have been possible without the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act.

And this still would have been adverted if that bill had been passed, it would have eliminated the worst of the worst subprime loans because the bubble was still a year or so off of popping by then. By this time now we would be experiencing a minor hiccup as some somewhat bad mortgages are going around, but the securitized loans would on the whole be a LOT safer.

So sure this may have its roots back in 2001, but people realized how Freddie and Fannie were taking advantage of it and sought to rectify it before it was too late. Additionally, since Obama didn't vote FOR the 2005 bill, one could surmise that Obama understands the economy even less than McCain (even if you want to pin the blame on McCain for the entire thing anyways).

And Olds, 1 question, have the Bush Stimulus packages worked? the latest one was mostly used to pay off credit, which does zip for the economy (im unaware of what the earlier ones were spent on).

Edited September 23, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Drew Dowdell]

So McCain wanted to bring back regulation 4 years after Gramm-Leach?

I'm not pinning the blame on McCain... the blame lies with Gramm.... however, Gramm is McCain's economic policy adviser.

Has the stimulus packages worked? No. Retail is down. Auto industry is down. Housing is down.

The stimulus went to the people who didn't need it. You're a wealthy business man. You just got your post 9-11 tax cuts. Why would you use your tax cut to hire more people when you can't actually sell more product? Lease yourself a new company S-class and write the extra cost off your taxes.

Country first..... but it doesn't say which country. Germany perhaps?

[loki]

Supposedly, most people spent their rebate on gasoline, household bills, and porn.....but in my case, I'm talking about an ongoing reduction in taxes for the middle class.

ok. hm. sounds good... your other ideas relating to energy and, mostly adding more taxes to other things... just off the top of my head sounds like it may still have a ~net 0 effect on the budget if it was enacted today...? but i'm guessing you want more of the "old tax progressive hike"....the highest eschalon of the rich would pay more like 50%-95%, some where up there. ?

[Drew Dowdell]

BTW.... Pick the elitist!

[loki]

side note. i was pretty sure i was voting constitution party.... RP has endorsed the party's candidate now.

last sentence.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=582

[Drew Dowdell]

ok. hm. sounds good... your other ideas relating to energy and, mostly adding more taxes to other things... just off the top of my head sounds like it may still have a ~net 0 effect on the budget if it was enacted today...? but i'm guessing you want more of the "old tax progressive hike"....the highest eschalon of the rich would pay more like 50%-95%, some where up there. ?

Well I don't have a specific percentage in mind because I don't have a legion of economists working for me. Mostly I'm concerned with lowering the taxes on the tax brackets that spend the most as a collective. The net difference would have to be made up by those higher up the scale. I would likely want 50% as the highest ceiling for any tax on anyone, but lower than that if budget allows. Money always flows upward anyway.

[siegen]

Google and Microsoft are supporting Obama, interesting...

I haven't read every page of the thread, have the interview debates been posted yet? (http://www.youdecide2008.com/2008/08/17/video-clips-from-the-rick-warren-civil-forum)

Are you guys excited for the debate this Friday? I may watch it, or watch it later online, depending on what I do that day.

I have a feeling McCain is going to do well. He is quick to answer questions with little delay, while Obama tends to think and do the "uhh..." thing prior to answering a question.

[Drew Dowdell]

We're having a Long Island Ice Tea drinking party.... everytime McCain tells a lie I have to take a drink....

.

man I'm going to be wasted.

</joking....sorta>

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

So McCain wanted to bring back regulation 4 years after Gramm-Leach?

Gramm-Leach was passed in 1999 with broad support from both sides and signed into law under Bill Clinton.

I'm not pinning the blame on McCain... the blame lies with Gramm.... however, Gramm is McCain's economic policy adviser.

True, but after this do you really think McCain is going to go along with Gramm on everything? Just because you made one (really bad) mistake, doesn't necessarily discredit the rest of your advice. Plus it is obvious that McCain realized problems with it so i don't think McCain would be a blindly loyal follower to everything Gramm says.

What it boils down to is that this bill passed with support from both sides. Later, the republicans say "well, due to the actions of Freddy and Fannie, there were some egregious oversights in the bill and we need to rectify this before it goes into meltdown" the democrats come back saying "screw you" and voila, were in a crisis. If i was a conspiracy theorist, i might speculate they did this to wrest the election from the GOP, but its a good thing i'm not because the idea that anyone would subject their country to this WILLINGLY is depressing.

Has the stimulus packages worked? No. Retail is down. Auto industry is down. Housing is down.

My point exactly

The stimulus went to the people who didn't need it. You're a wealthy business man. You just got your post 9-11 tax cuts. Why would you use your tax cut to hire more people when you can't actually sell more product? Lease yourself a new company S-class and write the extra cost off your taxes.

The law itself begs to differ.

The tax rebates created by the law will be paid to individual U.S. taxpayers during 2008. Most taxpayers below the income limit will receive a rebate of at least $300 per person ($600 for married couples filing jointly). Eligible taxpayers will receive, along with their individual payment, $300 per dependent child under the age of 17. The payment will be equal to the payer's net income tax liability, but will not exceed $600 (for a single person) or $1200 (married couple filing jointly).[4] Net liability can be found in these locations:

* Form 1040: line 57 plus line 52

* Form 1040A: line 35 plus line 32

* Form 1040EZ: line 10

Those with no net tax liability will still be eligible to receive a rebate, provided they meet minimum qualifying income of $3,000 per year.[5] Rebates will be phased out for taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes greater than $75,000 ($150,000 for couples filing jointly) in 2007. For taxpayers with incomes greater than $75,000, rebates will be reduced at a rate of 5% of the income above this limit. Individuals who are claimed as dependents by another taxpayer are not eligible for the rebates.[4]

The $3,000 of qualifying income includes earned income (e.g., wages, self-employment income, Social Security), however Supplemental Security Income does not count as qualifying income for the stimulus payment. Also, low-income workers are required to file a return to receive the payment, even if they would not be required to file for income tax purposes.[6]

Some taxpayers who exceed the income limits, but have qualifying children, will still get a rebate. For example, a single parent whose 2007 adjusted gross income was $90,000, pays more than $600 in 2007 taxes and has two qualifying children will receive a rebate of $450. The IRS adds together a $600 rebate for the parent and $600 for the two children to get $1,200, then subtracts the phaseout reduction of $750 ($50 for each $1,000 income above $75,000) to get $450.[7]

So if stimulus packages, which, lets face it, weren't targeted at the rich, didn't do anything, what makes you think your policy (which is damn near the same) will do any better? The stimulus package is a classic example of Keynesian economics, or demand side as you like to call it. You can keep a fire alive by throwing money at it, or you can do a sensible thing and stick a fresh log in it. The Government throwing money around is far less efficient than the private sector doing it.

One other thing. You said:

3rd Fannie and Freddie aren't the cause, merely the symptom.

This statement is untrue because who do you think securitized these bad loans? If they hadn't of been securitized then many people wouldn't have bought them (cause they would quite obviously look bad if you could see all the individual details). So if securitization is the root cause of this problem, then your real culprit is not really the Gramm act (which compounded the matter, but certainly did not create it), but the S&L crisis, which authorized the ability to securitize or "pool" these loans together.

And one last thing. If McCain wins, and the economy goes on an upturn, you will grumble and say well the economy was going back up anyways and probably be happy with it. If Obama wins and the economy goes on an upturn, you will say it was all due to his economic policy and will use that as claim that Keynesian economics works.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Drew Dowdell]

1. It initially passed the senate on party lines. When it did pass both houses after Dems added a bunch of protections, it was Veto proof. Clinton couldn't have vetoed it even if he wanted to.

2. Would you say the same thing if say... Angelo Mozilo were Obama's Chairman of the FHA?

3. I was referring to the tax cuts just post 9-11, not the rebates in May of 2008. The May 2008 rebate was too minuscule to matter. So redo your assessment.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

1. It initially passed the senate on party lines. When it did pass both houses after Dems added a bunch of protections, it was Veto proof. Clinton couldn't have vetoed it even if he wanted to.

2. Would you say the same thing if say... Angelo Mozilo were Obama's Chairman of the FHA?

3. I was referring to the tax cuts just post 9-11, not the rebates in May of 2008. The May 2008 rebate was too minuscule to matter. So redo your assessment.

Miniscule? nope! Its more than would be afforded the lower classes under Obama's plan. My approach to your statement may (was) flawed, but you just proved my point.

a nice article on Obama's Income Redistribution. I must apologize, i lied about the 70% thing. Apparently what truly happened is that in 2000 top 1% paid 30% of taxes. By 2008 the same top 1% were paying 40% of taxes.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...otic_tonic.html

and in reference to your #2, yes i am biased and no i would not. But i could still argue through the end of my last post that Gramm wasn't truly responsibly for the CAUSE of this crisis (which could never have happened without the S&L crisis and their resolution of it). It was more of a financial perfect storm that created this.

Oh and.... totally not relevant, but i found this very amusing from this article http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...out_obama.html:

If Barack Obama loses the 2008 election, liberal hell will break loose.

Seven weeks before the 2008 presidential election, liberals are warning America that if Barack Obama loses, it is because Americans are racist. Of course, that this means that Democrats (and independents) are racist, since Republicans will vote Republican regardless of the race of the Democrat, is an irony apparently lost on the Democrats making these charges.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Drew Dowdell]

One other thing. You said:

This statement is untrue because who do you think securitized these bad loans? If they hadn't of been securitized then many people wouldn't have bought them (cause they would quite obviously look bad if you could see all the individual details). So if securitization is the root cause of this problem, then your real culprit is not really the Gramm act (which compounded the matter, but certainly did not create it), but the S&L crisis, which authorized the ability to securitize or "pool" these loans together.

And one last thing. If McCain wins, and the economy goes on an upturn, you will grumble and say well the economy was going back up anyways and probably be happy with it. If Obama wins and the economy goes on an upturn, you will say it was all due to his economic policy and will use that as claim that Keynesian economics works.

Oh neat! Something else Gramm had his fingers in.

I'll be happy for an economic upturn either way... and I'll assess the evidence when the time comes. I feel certain, however, that McCain's plan as it currently stands will not help the economy.

The economy will likely bottom out this december-january and then bounce along the bottom for the following 12 months regardless of who is in office.... where it goes after that is anyone's guess.

[Drew Dowdell]

Miniscule? nope! Its more than would be afforded the lower classes under Obama's plan. My approach to your statement may (was) flawed, but you just proved my point.

a nice article on Obama's Income Redistribution. I must apologize, i lied about the 70% thing. Apparently what truly happened is that in 2000 top 1% paid 30% of taxes. By 2008 the same top 1% were paying 40% of taxes.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...otic_tonic.html

and in reference to your #2, yes i am biased and no i would not. But i could still argue through the end of my last post that Gramm wasn't truly responsibly for the CAUSE of this crisis (which could never have happened without the S&L crisis and their resolution of it). It was more of a financial perfect storm that created this.

Oh and.... totally not relevant, but i found this very amusing from this article http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...out_obama.html:

There is a difference between a one time rebate and on going tax cuts.

The same top 1% have broken all records on wealth retained. They are paying more taxes because they are so much more wealthy relative to the lower classes. Yet another Rich get Richer, Poor get poorer.

Sure, you can mince words. Gramm was not the cause.... Gramm's bill <along with the S&L stuff> was the cause. There isn't just one cause though.

You're right, completely irrelevant.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Gramm is only an unofficial economic adviser since July 18th.

[Drew Dowdell]

Gramm is only an unofficial economic adviser since July 18th.

if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.... in alaska... that I was for before I was against.... you can see Russia from it....mind the lipstick.

[Drew Dowdell]

Got this in my email:

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR URGENT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP

DEAR AMERICAN:

I NEED TO ASK YOU TO SUPPORT AN URGENT SECRET BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH A TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF GREAT MAGNITUDE.

I AM MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY OF THE REPUBLIC OF AMERICA. MY COUNTRY HAS HAD CRISIS THAT HAS CAUSED THE NEED FOR LARGE TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF 800 BILLION DOLLARS US. IF YOU WOULD ASSIST ME IN THIS TRANSFER, IT WOULD BE MOST PROFITABLE TO YOU.

I AM WORKING WITH MR. PHIL GRAM, LOBBYIST FOR UBS, WHO WILL BE MY REPLACEMENT AS MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY IN JANUARY. AS A SENATOR, YOU MAY KNOW HIM AS THE LEADER OF THE AMERICAN BANKING DEREGULATION MOVEMENT IN THE 1990S. THIS TRANSACTIN IS 100% SAFE.

THIS IS A MATTER OF GREAT URGENCY. WE NEED A BLANK CHECK. WE NEED THE FUNDS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. WE CANNOT DIRECTLY TRANSFER THESE FUNDS IN THE NAMES OF OUR CLOSE FRIENDS BECAUSE WE ARE CONSTANTLY UNDER SURVEILLANCE. MY FAMILY LAWYER ADVISED ME THAT I SHOULD LOOK FOR A RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY PERSON WHO WILL ACT AS A NEXT OF KIN SO THE FUNDS CAN BE TRANSFERRED.

PLEASE REPLY WITH ALL OF YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, IRA AND COLLEGE FUND ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND THOSE OF YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN TO [email protected] SO THAT WE MAY TRANSFER YOUR COMMISSION FOR THIS TRANSACTION. AFTER I RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION, I WILL RESPOND WITH DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT SAFEGUARDS THAT WILL BE USED TO PROTECT THE FUNDS.

YOURS FAITHFULLY MINISTER OF TREASURY PAULSON

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.... in alaska... that I was for before I was against.... you can see Russia from it....mind the lipstick.

Oh i know hes still close to McCain, im just saying that on the mere technicality that hes the top adviser your wrong.

[Drew Dowdell]

mince away.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

You know, as the US we should just seize some country and use them as guinea pigs for economic testing.

We can use what we learn to improve our own economy, scientifically and unethically!

[Drew Dowdell]

You know, as the US we should just seize some country and use them as guinea pigs for economic testing.

We can use what we learn to improve our own economy, scientifically and unethically!

Welcome to March 2003.

[Intrepidation]

Zing!

[A Horse With No Name]

Deficit reduction will be vital.

Which is why I'm voting for Obama.

Reagan, a president that deserves a grade of F and is actually one of our worst presidents ever...highest deficits ever to that point.

Bush Sr. = Worse deficits than reagan

Bush Jr = worse deficits yet.

The idea that any modern Republican will reduce deficits is just pure fantasy.

Democrats tax and spend, Republicans borrow and spend.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

Welcome to March 2003.

Imagine if we had just,(as someonesaid, maybe you Oldsmoboi) listened to Carter back in the 1970's we wouldn't have spent another three trilion dollars invading Iraq because we'd have other sources of energy and would be conserving.

I am more than sure that McCain would have no problem whatsoever borrowing antoher three trillion for another 6 or 8 years of mindless war.

Sad thing is, for three trillion dollars we could ahve built a rail network, gotten biofuels, gotten wind power, etc.

Imagine what we can piss away over the next 8 years if McCain is elected...

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

I know you're against any government handouts of any form, but where I'm going with this is, if the government is going to hand out $700,000,000,000 to keep the economy going. It would be better off handing it to the middle class. That money would "create" a demand that would trickle up through the economy. People could pay their mortgages. Investment banks wouldn't need bailing out.

...or if we had a tax plan that kept buisiness here, and actually educated people and spent money on our own infrastructure rather than on a mindless war in Iraq that has killed over 4000 Americans and seriously injured 30,000...we might have a strong enough economy that we wouldn't need a mortgage bailout.

Chris

[Drew Dowdell]

Imagine if we had just,(as someonesaid, maybe you Oldsmoboi) listened to Carter back in the 1970's we wouldn't have spent another three trilion dollars invading Iraq because we'd have other sources of energy and would be conserving.

I am more than sure that McCain would have no problem whatsoever borrowing antoher three trillion for another 6 or 8 years of mindless war.

Sad thing is, for three trillion dollars we could ahve built a rail network, gotten biofuels, gotten wind power, etc.

Imagine what we can piss away on the rich over the next 8 years if McCain is elected...

Chris

Fixed.

and yes, it was me. Carter started an alternative energy push back in '77 and '78. He had solar panel installed on the roof of the Whitehouse. Reagan promptly had them removed.

There wouldn't have been a second Iraq war because there wouldn't have been a first one. There wouldn't have been a 9-11. There wouldn't have been our war in Afghanistan. The power of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Venezuela, Russia, would have all been wiped out.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Which is why I'm voting for Obama.

Reagan, a president that deserves a grade of F and is actually one of our worst presidents ever...highest deficits ever to that point.

Bush Sr. = Worse deficits than reagan

Bush Jr = worse deficits yet.

The idea that any modern Republican will reduce deficits is just pure fantasy.

Democrats tax and spend, Republicans borrow and spend.

Chris

'92 Election, Ralph Nader makes it clear deficit was ultra important.

Clinton wins. Clinton espouses very conservative economic means (aside from a tax hike, which was compensated by loose money policy) and reduces debt.

Now if Bush would have won, he already had the framework ready for debt reduction, in a way Clinton inherited the framework for debt reduction.

If Iraq had never happened, the scenario would look very different. I do not believe McCain would push us into another war when our debt is already so high... unless absolutely forced to (ya know, like if Mexico decides its time to invade us to retake California).

But no i totally agree with you that Bush Jr. was just terrible about financing the war, the recent subprime thing, etc. (albeit in all fairness the subprime thing shouldn't even have been a large enough problem to require THIS much federal aid). The GOP of Regan/Bush/Bush has been a borrow and spend party, i think McCain if nothing else has/will bring the GOP back closer to the Teddy Roosevelt version of the party where fiscal conservatism was very important.

But at the same time, i have little confidence in Obama to actually reduce our deficit either.

[Drew Dowdell]

'92 Election, Ralph Nader makes it clear deficit was ultra important.

Clinton wins. Clinton espouses very conservative economic means (aside from a tax hike, which was compensated by loose money policy) and reduces debt.

Now if Bush would have won, he already had the framework ready for debt reduction, in a way Clinton inherited the framework for debt reduction.

If Iraq had never happened, the scenario would look very different. I do not believe McCain would push us into another war when our debt is already so high... unless absolutely forced to (ya know, like if Mexico decides its time to invade us to retake California).

But no i totally agree with you that Bush Jr. was just terrible about financing the war, the recent subprime thing, etc. (albeit in all fairness the subprime thing shouldn't even have been a large enough problem to require THIS much federal aid). The GOP of Regan/Bush/Bush has been a borrow and spend party, i think McCain if nothing else has/will bring the GOP back closer to the Teddy Roosevelt version of the party where fiscal conservatism was very important.

But at the same time, i have little confidence in Obama to actually reduce our deficit either.

Obama's tax plan is mostly neutral though slightly negative. McCain's is VERY negative.

McCain will be a fiscal conservative out of necessity... there won't be anything left to spend.

[Drew Dowdell]

[Northstar]

Fixed.

and yes, it was me. Carter started an alternative energy push back in '77 and '78. He had solar panel installed on the roof of the Whitehouse. Reagan promptly had them removed.

I

There wouldn't have been a second Iraq war because there wouldn't have been a first one. There wouldn't have been a 9-11. There wouldn't have been our war in Afghanistan. The power of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Venezuela, Russia, would have all been wiped out.

Umm, Carter put $40 billion towards training Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. I think that would point to him contributing towards 9/11...

And Carter ruined our relationship with Iran, if anything Carter was the reason we got into poor relationships with Middle Eastern countries. Perhaps if his energy plans would have worked, those countries wouldn't have gained as much power, but I'm not convinced that we had the technology then to drastically reduce our oil consumption. Plus, the eocnomy was arguably worse with Carter than it is now, or at least headed that way.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

One other thing pertaining to the economy. McCains proposals would have businesses able to basically expense a lot more things much quicker. This tactic was done by Bush in the early part of this decade to great success (annoying to account for but whatever). Does Obama have this? No, he just wants to tax some of them more.

[loki]

...or if we had a tax plan that kept buisiness here, and actually educated people and spent money on our own infrastructure rather than on a mindless war in Iraq that has killed over 4000 Americans and seriously injured 30,000...we might have a strong enough economy that we wouldn't need a mortgage bailout.

Chris

and all the Iraqis killed..oh and the person that said that we were justified in trade sanctions with iraq (clinton years) probably leading to the deaths of ...30K children.... isn't she in BO advisory board or something....?

[Drew Dowdell]

One other thing pertaining to the economy. McCains proposals would have businesses able to basically expense a lot more things much quicker. This tactic was done by Bush in the early part of this decade to great success (annoying to account for but whatever). Does Obama have this? No, he just wants to tax some of them more.

I'll say it again.... tax breaks for companies won't amount to a hill of beans if there aren't people to buy the products they produce

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

I'll say it again.... tax breaks for companies won't amount to a hill of beans if there aren't people to buy the products they produce

I know, but this sort is thing is a VERY VERY useful thing for even the smallest of businesses.

[loki]

I know, but this sort is thing is a VERY VERY useful thing for even the smallest of businesses.

and if they didn't have to mess with taxes.. that'd be happier owners and more productive too. (less "down time")

[loki]

post #1000!!!!