|11-04-2008 06:07 PM|
|11-04-2008 05:43 PM|
|11-04-2008 02:13 PM|
|jupiterboy||So what is the longest running record for a fiat currency life span?|
|11-04-2008 01:57 PM|
We could base it on something other than gold but the point is, as long as we use a fiat currency we're going to have inflation.
|11-04-2008 01:50 PM|
|11-04-2008 01:48 PM|
Unless we go back to the gold standard, inflation is going to be a fact of life.
Oh, and I get profit sharing bonuses regularly...
|11-04-2008 01:45 PM|
He vetoed the first two attempts but was getting hammered politically for it.
|11-04-2008 10:33 AM|
^ totally agree.
Ever hear your grandfather talk about when a hamburger cost a nickel? Well it wasn't because food was cheaper, it was because our money was worth more.
|11-04-2008 10:14 AM|
|11-04-2008 09:15 AM|
I'm an old fart by most standards here, when I was growing up in the 60's a bank president made $100,000 a year, average income in NJ was $15,000 and you could live very well on that. It changed in the late 70's and the spread went from 4x's to 10x then to 20 times the average. Hell, McDonalds pays $20 an hour in certain areas of NJ now for slinging burgers and fries, thats nuts.
The greed has gotten disgusting, when was the last time you ever heard of a CEO giving a bonus to the workers for doing an excellent job and earning record profits ? I've never heard of one, I have heard of the CEO and Management voting themselves a bonus for a record profit. The main problem is that the corporate structure does not take care of their employees anymore, the corporate structure that reared it's ugly head in the early 90's has created two generations of workers that are now basically screwed. If it comes down to a CEO getting a multimillion dollar bonus or firing workers guess what wins. It turned me into a mercenary. I don't trust management to do anything but screw me at the first fork between putting me or fattening their own pockets first.
Our government went very wrong, if social security had been managed right it could have been turning a profit, if the money was managed right government could have turned a profit and become self supporting. Will Obama fix it, not likely, will McCain fix it, nope. It's turned into big business with the ability to write laws to enforce it's power and back it up with real physical penalties.
Take Saudi, Kuwait, any of the mideast oil countries, they SHARE the profits with their citizens, gee imagine that, a government that is for the people.
|11-04-2008 06:46 AM|
Well, perception is an element here. You say forced, but at the time it sure seemed like he really agreed with the Republicans and felt like it was time to take away the incentive to be on welfare for life. I would say this was an example of a democrat looking far beyond the party line and seeing what was best for the people and the economy.
Can you show me how he was forced? I'm sure there were lots of behind the doors negotiations I don't know about.
|11-03-2008 10:29 PM|
|skeeter||Umm, Clinton was forced into welfare reform by the republican congress.|
|11-03-2008 09:45 PM|
You are right, Clinton drank the deregulation KoolAid too, but clearly Phil Gramm was the primary advocate and the inside guy.
What I'm talking about is cutting welfare and taking lots of people off the check.
Clinton Signs Bill to Cut Welfare and Change State Role
|11-03-2008 09:31 PM|
|11-03-2008 09:26 PM|
I am too, but you don't run the government into deficit to force it. Remember Clinton cut welfare and did a good job.
I'm afraid we need to keep an eye on the military-industrial world and the privatization of military for profit. When we have payed mercenaries that are using better gear and making better wages than soldiers AND our taxes are going to pay for it something is terribly wrong.
|11-03-2008 09:16 PM|
I once heard someone say that it will be a horrible day when our schools have the best band and art programs, everyone has free healthcare, national parks are sprawling, buaracracy is growing, but the Navy has to hold a bake sale to buy a battleship.
Just something to think about.
|11-03-2008 09:10 PM|
|11-03-2008 09:02 PM|
If family X at $150,000 a year is having trouble making their nut, you cut their taxes and shift a bit of the burden to corporations and the super rich, who have been making the laws and amassing wealth at an historic rate. In this way more people keep their houses, stay out of emergency rooms because they keep their healthcare, and keep their kids out of jail. At the same time you trim expenses and take the focus off of short term quarterly profits, and put the emphasis into education and some longer term pay offs.
Poor people are expensive, and the fact is that there is a percentage of the population that are nuts or disabled or for other reasons are not contributing. Wellfare goes in large to single, white mothers. These elements have to be managed, and there is no cheap way to do it. Obviously, if you own stock, you want those who don't own stock to foot the bill so your stock will keep going up. Everyone has to do some lifting. When the load gets out of balance, things shift.
|11-03-2008 08:35 PM|
ya i agree, the top 2% rich are getting richer, and its ludicrous. but the poor getting poorer, i gotta agree w/ skeeter. i drive through a pretty run down town on my way to work, basically known as the worst w/ gangs, and low income and on and on. they're all on some form of public assistance, and they all have big screen tv's in their run down houses. something ain't right there, and they have $2,000 wheels on their $800 car.
the middle class is disappearing cuz the "super wealthy" that make 250k to run a business are barely getting by and aren't giving raises, and benefits, and generating new jobs. and cutting jobs to stay afloat. but lets tax them some more.
|11-03-2008 08:28 PM|
The poor getting poorer is ludicrous. Ever hear the interviews of "the poor" in the welfare lines? We're the only nation on earth where you're considered poor if you don't have cable tv, 2 cars and a big screen tv.
I know poor, I started out in public housing in LA county with my mother working 2 jobs to support us. Government handouts don't get you out of that, they keep you in it. The only thing that gets you out is getting off your ass and getting yourself out.
The middle class is alive and well from what I can tell.
If trickle down doesn't work then detail a system that does. Offer a solution that makes some logical sense because the trickle up nonsense Obama is spouting laughable.
|11-03-2008 08:12 PM|
The whole problem that you are not seeing jdoc is that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is starting to diminish. If we continue on the current trend there will be no middle class...
This post was not meant for me to advocate either candidate, only for debate and showing both sides through the eyes of a non-biased analyst.
|11-03-2008 08:09 PM|
never does any one group of income earners get a raise across the board except when they raise minimum waige, and all min. wage earners get a raise. what does that do for our economy? nothing. obama is a businessman, he wants to keep his job, and move up. and he's gonna do so by gaining the support of the low income bracket. only for his own benefit.
|11-03-2008 05:56 PM|
I can't wait till this is over
I hate politics
I already voted!
|11-03-2008 05:51 PM|
A flat tax would be great, but getting it implemented so that everyone payed in and no one got off free would be almost impossible in our current situation.
|11-03-2008 05:41 PM|
|richp||This whole thing is BS, flat tax everyone at 10%, period, then MAKE the federal government live within it's means. Downside, half a million unemployed tax accountants, IRS employees and auditors, no endless supply of money bled from citizens.|
|11-03-2008 05:37 PM|
|4point||The best years this country has known during my life were during the Reagan years.|
|11-03-2008 04:52 PM|
Trickle-down didn't work under Reagan. Everyone realized that but enough time passed that it was re-spun by the media as a success. It isn't working now, the purchasing power of the consumer is starting to suffer. I admire your undying faith in the super wealthy and their altruistic ways, but at some point the pendulum must swing the other way.
Every notice the large corporate interests that have the lobby power and help write the laws are international in many cases? Business is hording money and has been for several years. They are not, in general, expanding and creating jobs. Why? Because they realize their efforts to tip the scale in their own favor have worked too well and that the middle class is drying up.
Growth industry for the future is prisons to hold the poor.
|11-03-2008 04:26 PM|
|11-03-2008 04:24 PM|
This late in the game, very few are still sitting on that proverbial fence, so as interesting a read as it is, most are decided. Hopefully, they gathered their information from as many sources as they could find, including the candidates own sites, and stayed involved in more than just the bite sized snack information that's been handed out by the media.
Do me a favor, Justin, and place quote tags around the stuff you didn't write yourself. It'll lend more credence to what you're posting (ie a source telling us it's not just your opinion).
|11-03-2008 04:19 PM|
What they'll do to your tax bill
McCain and Obama want to change the bottom-line effects of the tax code. Here's a dollars-and-cents breakdown of what their plans could mean for you.
BREAKING DOWN THE NUMBERS
Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place.
Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885
$603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974
$227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12
$161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789
$112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204
$66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290
$38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042
$19K-$38K -$113 -$892
Under $19K -$19 -$567
Source:The Tax Policy Center
Taxes: McCain vs. Obama
VerySomewhatNot at all or View results
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- John McCain and Barack Obama have starkly different philosophies about tax policy - how to raise the revenue needed to support government programs, spur growth and ensure economic fairness.
But voters really want to know one thing: How would the presidential candidates' views trickle down to their tax bills? A report released Wednesday by a nonpartisan policy group in Washington, D.C., takes a big first step toward answering that question.
According to the Tax Policy Center's findings, the common assumptions most people make about the plans of McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and Obama, the Democrats' pick, are not wildly off-base.
McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.
Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most - in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income - are in the lowest income groups.
Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.
The reason: neither plan would raise the amount of revenue expected under current tax policy - which assumes all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire by 2011. And neither plan would raise enough to cover expected government costs during those 10 years.
"Distributionally, they're markedly different. But in terms of their impact on revenue, the two plans are not terribly different," said Roberton Williams, principal research associate at the Tax Policy Center and the former deputy assistant director for tax analysis at the Congressional Budget Office.
A closer look
In addition to making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, McCain says he would double the exemption for dependents, lower the corporate tax rate, make expensing rules more generous for small businesses and lessen the bite of the estate tax and Alternative Minimum tax.
The net result: compared with their tax bill today, taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $1,200. That means their after-tax income would rise by 2%.
But those in the lowest income groups would only see their after-tax income rise by less than 1% (or between $19 and $319). By contrast, the highest-income households - those with incomes of at least $603,000 - would see a boost in after-tax income of 3.4%, or more than $40,000.
Obama's plan would keep the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place for everyone except those making more than roughly $250,000, and he would increase the capital gains tax.
Obama would also introduce new tax breaks for lower and middle-income groups. Such breaks include expanding the earned income tax credit, giving those making less than $150,000 a $500 tax credit per person on the first $8,100 in income, giving those making under $75,000 a 50% federal match on the first $1,000 of savings, and exempting seniors making less than $50,000 from having to pay income tax.
Like McCain, Obama would lessen the bite of the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax, but to a lesser degree.
The net result: compared with their tax bill today, taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $160 under Obama's plan. That means their after-tax income would rise by 0.3%.
But those in the lowest-income groups would enjoy the biggest after-tax income rise as a percentage of income - between 2.4% and 5.5% (worth between $567 and $1,042). By contrast, the highest-income households - those with at least $603,000 in income - would see a dramatic decline in their after-tax income - a drop of 8.7%, or $116,000.
The campaigns respond
Jason Furman, a newly appointed senior economic adviser to Obama, said his preliminary response is that the report's findings bear out what Obama's campaign has been saying: that he's for the middle class.
"Middle-class families get tax cuts that are three times larger from Obama than from McCain," Furman said. "And the McCain plan gives nearly one-quarter of its benefits to households making more than $2.8 million annually - the top 0.1%."
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, senior economic adviser to McCain, noted that the report does not take into account the spending reforms - such as eliminating earmarks - that are central to McCain's strategy to support tax relief and help reduce the deficit.
One of the center's co-directors, William Gale, conceded in a conference call that "if McCain succeeds (in achieving his proposed spending cuts), the fiscal cost of his plan does go down."
But spending cuts can be politically difficult to achieve, said Len Burman, the Tax Policy Center's director.
Holtz-Eakin characterized McCain's plan as one geared toward "reshaping federal bureaucracies and protecting taxpayers' money. [His] plan is based on kicking down doors in Washington, and delivering tax dollars back to the American taxpayers who are struggling with record gas prices, soaring food costs and a down economy."
Not the final word
Williams said the Tax Policy Center analysis should be viewed as a work in progress. Researchers plan to update it as they get more information about the plans from the campaigns and if the candidates introduce new tax policies between now and Election Day.
The center will also incorporate the tax elements of McCain's and Obama's health care proposals when they update their findings.
How the candidates' tax plans would affect economic growth is an open question. "It depends on how the deficits are closed," Burman said.
Tax studies have shown that when tax cuts are deficit funded and they're paid for by raising taxes in the future, "the economy is worse off than if you didn't cut at all," Burman said.
|This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|