The term "working class" has traditionally meant blue-collar. Now I think it just means "lower-middle class". It's not that people who make more don't work, it's that they (usually) don't struggle as much to raise their family. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with his tax plan, just commenting on the terms used.
Mac, whose comment was that pointed at because so far no one has stated this is a non-issue. Oh, and what's a statician?
Well, this has long been my complaint about our two parties. To the dems, I'm "rich." And thus, I need to be soaked. To the repubs, I'm not rich, and thus I need to be ignored. Both parties have the unofficial motto of "screwing the other guy for you," and do their best to hid the fact that you are ALWAYS "the other guy" who gets screwed. Obama's fiscal policies are my biggest problem with him. Then again, I don't see prospects for a better overall fiscal environment with the Repubs and their present track record. At worst, I am looking at a possible Obama vote as chemotherapy. Yes, it will make us puke our guts out, lose all of our hair, and wish we were dead. But it also cures cancer. Right now, we've got a cancer of a Repub party that spends like mad, plans for ****, and distracts us with ******** "social conservative" issues. I'm ready to take my medicine.
Brisket I was under the impression the congess passes a budget and sets spending levels. The free spending Repubs left a few years ago. If by free spending you are talking about Iraq, then the Dems should pull the plug. They do not have the guts and will spend and tax and pretend they are helping the middle class. What a joke.
I never said that the Dems are the answer. My vote this election (I'm pretty sure) will be the following message, and that message only -- "You guys ****** up, you suck, and I'm throwing you out. Mend your ways, and you may re-apply for the position." And of course, Obama won't accomplish anywhere close to a large percentage of what he's talking about, economically. Even the Dem Congress is too beholden the big money interests to cut them off at the knees. So, the "fears" that I have about an Obama presidency are tempered by the fact that I believe that the vast majority of those things will not come to pass. And if, in the process, we end up having a BIT more civil debate and discourse in this country, I'll take that, too. The Republican party has directly told me (a fiscally conservative middle-class consumer of mexican anscestry, etc.) "f**k YOU" too many times for me to ignore. If someone tells me that often enough, the only appropriate response is "No, f**k YOU." So, Obama is my "f**k you" vote. He just happens to be such a vote that is relatively decent, and I think he can raise the level of discourse in this country, even if ever so slightly. These pathetic days, that's good enough for me.
Well, so much for any attempt at serious discussion about a candidate's positions. All of the Obamanites have spent the past 5 days parrying the Wright issue. I'll admit that I was involved in that originally but I decided a few days back to try and lay off. But the supporters don't want to talk nuts and bolts. Because then Obama will be exposed. Look at my original post. From what I can figure out, Obama wants to tag households making over 75,000 a year with a tax hike. But he says 150,000,000 workers will get a tax reduction. Can't be both ways. Anyone?
Mac -- I don't think his tax proposal is realistic, and to the extent that it is, I think that it sucks. That said, we gotta find out some way to pay for an expensive war, a Congress that has spent to make a drunken sailor blush, all resulting in deficits and debt that will eat us alive if we don't take a bitter pill soon and knock it down. I have a hard time thinking of a way that DOESN'T involve a tax increase/repeal of some tax cuts. Well, a machine that kicks every Congressperson in the gonads one time for every dollar he/she approves over and above our revenue would be a start, but as man has yet to invent a perpetual motion machine, that remains a dream.
Working families does not mean all families who have at least one employed member. It does not mean families in which everyone able to work finds a way, and the kids are juggled among the off-duty and not-quite-able to work. Working families technically don't even need to have anyone in them that is currently holding down a job. Working families is code for "people like you, if you are listening to me, not those greedy people with more than you." My family is like the second one mentioned above in my post-- I won't bother holding my breath for "fairness" or recognition as "working." Most politicians disgust me.
Mac: where are you getting that $75K number? I've only seen Obama reference the "wealthiest 1%," which should mean simply allowing ONLY the top tax bracket reset to 39.6% - you have to have an AGI of $357,701+ to reach that bracket (The income split point for the top 1% in 2005 was $364,657). IMO, Obama's position to reinstate PAYGO rules is the most important fiscal policy anyone has taken. Taxes are going to go up, no matter which of the three remaining candidates makes it into the WH. If Congress is forced into spending restraint, at least that pocketbook pain has the possibility of righting the ship, and could lead to lower rates down the line. Our history of Keynesian dabbling has proven that running MASSIVE deficits only necessitates tax increases down the line. The goal should be CONTINUOUSLY LOW taxes, not low taxes for the purposes of reelection, and the promise of such to get in office. I have no illusions that the myopic electorate will ever understand this, but I'm gonna keep saying it. pevo, nobody is going to let every aspect of the '01/'03 cuts sunset. You're either just scaremongering or not paying attention.
I have heard him saying that he wants to give tax cuts to those making LESS than $75k. That particular plan isn't outlined on his website. There is a disconnect, obviously, between the programs he wants to implement, and the limited tax increase in his plan. However, if he were to hold true to his PAYGO promise, there would necessarily be compromises on both ends of his proposals - on new spending and on tax proposals. All three candidates have such disconnects. McCain calls for a corporate tax cut. Since most of the revenue that "came back" after the '01/'03 cuts came back via the corporate tax, and JM calls for numerous other cuts, including first year expensing, and an R&D tax credit. That's all well and good, but given we're already headed back towards record deficits, I'm curious as how he thinks such a reckless policy would be sustainable. Truth be told there are Republican deficit hawks that won't let McCain push through all of his agenda. They're the reason the Bush tax cuts were passed with a sunset in the first place. If I were to bet on any tax plan being passed, or on the one that is closest to the eventual changes, it'd be the Rangel plan. I'm REALLY not sure about the treatment of hedge fund managers' income as regular instead of investment (thus taxable at up to 35% as opposed to 15%), but the rest seem plausible.
I hope if any of the tax cuts sunset or expire that they all do. It would only be the most fair way to go about things. But then again- I'm the one that argued that the real reason we've got this government waste problem is b/c not enough people pay taxes, so not enough people care about watching government spending.
Please stop pretending both side don't play this game. Ok? Of course it's "class warfare," to a degree. But neither side is more nefarious than the other on this. And neither has an upper hand on being truthful or even intellectually honest in this arena. I don't know where it begins, with the electorate or with our pols, but nobody seems to be honest with themselves about what it takes to pay for everything we all (mostly) agree that we want our governments (local, state, federal) to provide for us. As long as we demand services, the top earners will pay the vast majority of the cost. There just isn't any money in the bottom 50% of earners (split point for 2005 ~$30k/yr!!!). That group pulls in less than $13% of the nation's total reported positive AGI (there are negative AGI returns that would offset that number, but they're not included in the bottom 50%'s total AGI, meaning that including the offset would LOWER the % total AGI, as well as lower the split point for that and all segments). And on that link, they're addressing the disconnect which I talked about. You can't claim that Obama WANTS to raise taxes on people making $75k, 'cause he hasn't said it.
How about every manager level person in the Federal government takes a 25% reduction in pay unless he/she can find 15% of his budget to cut?(not including employee salaries of people below him nor headcount too btw) That would free up enough money to start getting close to breaking even and then it can be recalibrated after a year or two. Right now the managers try and find ways to spend every dollar allocated or they won't get it the next year. The system is broken. A never-ending, ever increasing drain of funds from the available dollars taken in each year due to virtually no checks and balances of any kind to encourage spending less. Hold the line on spending, should happened while the economy was rolling, so you can be ready to pay the piper when the recession times come. <sigh> Every expenditure within the last 5-7 years under Bush was less than the Democrats would have spent except for defense. Wanting less spending or more fiscal responsibility with Democrats in charge is folly of the worst kind, and probably worse under Obama than Clinton in my opinion.
You'll never find the group that Obama is talking about Macunudo, because he doesn't intend you to find it. The "working poor" aren't a group that actually exists in any real sense, they are an ideal. The "working poor" of which Obama is talking is just a group of people whom we should all feel sorry for, and thus by making us feel sorry for these people, he justifies massive government spending. At election time, we hear "working poor" and "middle class" then think "Oh he's talking about me of course." Only to find out afterwards that somehow, we're the ones whom he considers to be rich. We're the ones who must be punished for our success. And unless we're flat broke with ten starving kids to feed, we'll probably never ever escape the classification of "rich" according to Obama.
