Obama's "redistribution of wealth"

[T.J.K.]

He made it up, obviously. Either that or he should be making a fortune in the "crystal ball manufacturing" business.

My assumption as well. That's why I asked. That's just more of the propaganda going around that the desperate McCain supporters I buying into.

[immts007]

Then you might not want to increase the taxes on the people and businesses who are supposed to supply those jobs. Or have you been employed by a poor person before?

This is where I get start to get irritated, Smallville. The people whose taxes are going to be raised are

not poor, and they will be in no way poor after their rates (again, for the top two brackets) revert to what they were under Clinton.

[T.J.K.]

I will post this again..........

Per the Tax Policy Center, here is how Obama's tax plan breaks down for individuals:
$0-$18,891 = $567 tax cut
$18,982-$37,595 = $892 tax cut
$37,596-$66,354 = $1,118 tax cut
$66,355-$111,645 = $1,264 tax cut
$111,646-$160,972 = $2,135 tax cut
$160,973-$226,918 = $2,796 tax cut
$226,919-$603,402 = $121 tax increase
$603,403-$2.87 million = $93,709 tax increase
$2.87 million-plus = $542,882 tax increase

[Smallville]

I think you're still missing the point.

I'm not the only one. ^^^^^^^^^ And no, the choice is not as clear to me as it must be to you . . . but McCain is the lesser of the two in my opinion.

This is where I get start to get irritated, Smallville. The people whose taxes are going to be raised are

I agree, the rich will not be poor. And in the end, they'll make what they did before anyway. How? I already said: move to another place, raise prices or cut payroll.

[Grogger31]

I will post this again..........

Don't post it again, TJK.

erniebanks already told you there isn't going to BE a tax cut for anyone. Stop posting data from independent sources and pay attention! Jeez.

[T.J.K.]

I'm not the only one. ^^^^^^^^^

I agree with the "lesser" part ;)

[Smallville]

I agree with the "lesser" part ;)

Funny, but you knew what I meant.

[pjsnyc]

I'm not the only one. ^^^^^^^^^

You're right - McCain is the lesser of the two

Up until about 2 weeks ago or so, I was undecided...but then I decided I actually want (GASP!!!) a smart man in the White House.

[Chilli Dipper]

At the end of his first term, FDR saw his New Deal as a great success. Therefore, he made an attempt to balance the budget in 1937. While the U.S. economy had grown considerably during the four years since he entered office, it wasn't yet strong enough to overcome the withdrawal of federal funding that had fueled much of its recent growth. As a result, the country went into recession by the end of 1937 and into 1938, when Republicans made gains during the midterm elections. It didn't have anything to do with taxes, it had to do with the inability of the private sector to shoulder the load when when the public sector cut back its investment.

[pjsnyc]

Anyone heard of Denken Research & Consulting? I hope it's non-partisan, but I figured I'd share this with you all - http://denkenresearch.com/articles/P...allBiz-new.pdf

[cwo2lt]

And no, the choice is not as clear to me as it must be to you . . . but McCain is the lesser of the two in my opinion.

I told someone the other day I wished I could vote

for someone for President again, I haven't since 1984.

[zeg]

Not in the least, but saying 3k is an insentive to "create" a job is a canard and an insult. Companies create jobs when it creates more profit than the expense it imposes, not to feel good about themselves.... jmoc

Your analysis of the situation and the impact of a $3k tax credit is deeply flawed. As you point out, the company will only hire if it's going to create profit. A company has to hire a certain number of people to get its job done. It's going to have to hire them *somewhere*. Labor is less expensive overseas, but there are additional expenses (shipping, maintaining a foreign office, legal costs, import duties, etc, etc, etc). In the end, though, the tax credit makes it $3k (using your number, I haven't independently verified this) cheaper to hire in the US than it would be to otherwise.

The point is not to give companies free employees, the point is to make it more attractive to hire the employees it needs anyway in the US.

[erniebanks]

Where did you get this info from. I am just curious. Is it something you read from a reputable source or did you hear it from some guy and are now passing it off as truth. I am really wondering. Not being a smart ass.

With which part do you have trouble ?

The push back part came from OB's mouth. The tax increase part comes from Democrat history (See W. J. Clinton) Took him 3 months to decide that we needed the tax increases he said were not coming. Like I said, check the history. BTY George the elder did it too. That was after his "Read my lips" statement.

[immts007]

The Economist endorses Obama "wholeheartedly" I guess they, along with The Financial Times , who endorsed Obama on Monday think his "redistribution of wealth" plan must be pretty damn good for business since business is their raison d'etre .

The Economist: It's Time .

The Financial Times: Obama is the better choice

[st0wgolf08]

Oh come on. You all know that Biden fumbled on his words again. Don't be disingenuous. Plain and simple: The Obama tax plan has the top two income brackets reverting to what they where under Clinton. That's it.

Hoho! But there it is, notice how anytime Biden fumbles his words only 1 news station airs it, but when Palin buys some new clothes, that's on all of them.

[pjsnyc]

The Economist

While I'm glad that more and more support is being thrown Obama's way, I honestly don't think ANY mainstream news media whatsoever should endorse any candidate. Sorry, kinda off-topic, but it only leads to each camp feeling like they're holding up a trophy...regardless if its American media or not

[immts007]

While I'm glad that more and more support is being thrown Obama's way, I honestly don't think ANY mainstream news media whatsoever should endorse any candidate. Sorry, kinda off-topic, but it only leads to each camp feeling like they're holding up a trophy...regardless if its American media or not

Yeah, I hear you. But I think endorsements like that stand in stark, useful contrast to the barrage of last minute misinformation coming out of the McCain campaign and the right wing 527's

[Chilli Dipper]

Hoho! But there it is, notice how anytime Biden fumbles his words only 1 news station airs it, but when Palin buys some new clothes, that's on all of them.

Politicians mince their words while giving speeches all the time. A cash-strapped campaign that can't afford ad time in battleground states spending six figures' worth of donor money to dress up a candidate they're selling as the voice of the working class, on the other hand, is a rather unique occurrence.