Political Punch

You can ask a Republican like Greenspan to endorse McCain, but you cannot ask an economist like Greenspan to endorse McCain's economic policies. Even Republicans have their limits.

Obama/Biden 08

Dare Nigeria wrote: "You and I are not affected."

Actually we are affected. Even if the company cannot directly pass on the tax to the consumer we still feel the effect. That was proven when Congress implemented a windfall profits tax on the oil companies back in 1980-1988 and U. S. domestic production of oil dropped between 1.2% and 4.8%. When supply drops prices go up.

Now then as for Sen. Obama's tax plan, the Washington Post Fact Checker (June 2008) states the following: "According to Obama's new economics adviser, Jason Furman, the revenues raised from letting the tax cuts expire will be returned to middle and low-income tax payers in the form of tax credits to pay for health insurance, so the overall effect will be revenue neutral."

So based on the 2008 tax schedule as a comparison, if (as Sen. McCain wants) the Bush tax cuts remain in effect a couple making $50,000 and filing jointly will have a tax liability of $6,698. If the Bush tax cuts are repealed that tax liability will be $8,300. That is a difference of $1,602. So according to Jason Furman's explanation, that couple will then receive a tax credit in order to pay for health insurance. But this couple will NOT receive a tax credit in the amount of $1,602 for paying for health insurance. It will be far less! That's because the "overall effect" will be revenue neutral. The tax increase on that the top 1%, will NOT equal the total difference between what tax liabilities would be under the Bush tax cuts and what it will become when these tax cuts expire for the entire bottom 95% of the nation's wage earners.

Obama's proposed Tax Cut is Pro-People (Low and middle class income Earners) while McCain Tax Cut is Pro-Corporation.
If Obama's Tax Cut is allowed to see the light of day, a Tax Payer earning below $250,000 per annum will save an averagen of $1000 per annum.

The Country is heavily indebted and with the War in Iraq and Afghnaistan, the Country would continue to experience dwindling economic fortunes.

Except below was posted on Political Punch on August 7, 2008 and it shows that contrary to what pundits' claim, the incidence of Obama's proposed Surtax can not be shifted by the Corporation to the Consumers.

The incidence of Surtax on Oil Companies' profit can not be passed to you and I. But the proceeds would be used for good of all.

A Company's Revenue less the Operating Expenses results in Operating Profit before Tax. The Revenue in this case is the sales revenue which must have included the price you pay at pump.
Companies Tax, which is a direct tax, is levied on the PBT. The resultant figure is the Profit After Tax (PAT).

It is the PAT that the Company appropriates between itself in the form of Reserve and its Shareholders in the form of Dividend.

If a Surtax is applied on the PBT, it reduces Profit available for appropriation and hence, Dividend payout to Shareholders.

The Company bears the incidence of the Taxation and it will subsequently have less to appropriate to Reserve and Dividend.

You and I are not affected.

The reason why the Bush Administration shied away from it to finance the Iraq War and Reconstruction is because the Core members of his Government and his Donor are mostly Oil Men.

It is an open secret that the Bush's Family is big Players in the Oil Industry. So levying Surtax on Oil Companies will greatly affect the returns they get at the end of the year.

That is why they are against it and that is why they are selling the dummy of Off-shore drilling to confuse hapless Americans who are now sold on the idea without considering the attendant Problem it will create for the environment, especially acquatic lifes.

President Lyndon Johnson was able to finance the Vietnam War using Surtax. That was why the Economy stayed bouyant despite the heavy War Spending.

The summary of my post is that SURTAX IS NOT AN INDIRECT TAX, SO IT CAN NOT BE SHIFTED TO THE CONSUMERS.

jds wrote: "It (Bush tax cuts) hasn't been working for the last 8 years!

The 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts got us through the major hits to our economy these past 7 1/2 years: 2000-01 recession; 9/11; corporate scandals; natural disasters (including 6 hurricanes in 2004-2005); slumping housing market; subprime mortage crisis (and subsequent tightening of loans); and the skyrocketing energy prices. From September 2003 through December 2007, we had 52 consecutive months of job growth (5 million jobs). And in spite of the current skyrocketing energy prices, the housing market and the mortgage crisis, our economy grew 0.9% in the first quarter and 3.3% in the second quarter of this year.

McCain wants to give a 4.4% tax cut to those who make over $2.8 million.

How can we keep giving tax cuts to the wealthy and expect a different result?

McCain's tax policies are the same as George Bush's. There's no difference.

Obama wants to increase taxes for this bracket by 11.5%, bringing their tax rate back to what it was under Clinton.

McCain's tax plan is IDENTICAL TO BUSHs.

It hasn't been working for the last 8 years!

Why on earth would we want to continue Bush's economics???

Please, America, THINK.

Ryan C is absolutely wrong when he says the president sets tax rates.

The U. S. Constitution gives CONGRESS the sole authority to make laws:

Article I, Sec. 8 -- "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..."

The president may make proposals but it is the Congress who actually writes the bills and passes the bills. The president can only sign the bill or veto the bill (to which Congress can override with a 2/3 vote).

McCain's tax cuts on the wealthiest would not only be paid with borrowed money from China, but I would think also on the interest from the borrowing, which the taxpayers would assume. McCain has stated that "changes" in social security and medicare would accompany his tax cuts, which should concern Americans nearing their sixties. However, his proposals have been conveniently set aside with the Palin media stir and the McCain camp's persistent and at times, insidious attacks;for example, Obama wants kindergartners to learn about sex before they learn to read.

James Danley wants you to forget who proposes budgets and sets tax rates. While Congress approves such meausres the President more or less gets their way.

The economy historically does better under Democratic administrations vs Republican administrations.

When Greenspan is calling your tax cuts wrong and Karl Rove is calling your ads sleazy, you know you have lost your way as a campaign

Dems, here's some food for thought! No what ifs! Sen. Obama says that he will give the bottom 95% of Americans a tax cut and/or tax credits--paid for by raising the federal income tax rate for those making at least $250,000 and raising the capital gains tax. Then FROM WHERE is the money going to come in order to pay for: Free preschool; free 4 years of college; eliminating the federal income tax on retirees making below $50,000; and universal healthcare????

Leonard Peltier wrote: "Interesting that Democrats managed to clean up the financial mess left by the last Republican financial genius."

Amazing how forgetful you Obama supporters are! During President Bush 41's Administration the Democrats held huge majorities in both Houses of Congress. In 1989-1991: The House had 260 Democrats and 175 Republicans, while the Senate had 55 Democrats and 45 Republicans; In 1991-1993 the House had 267 Democrats, 167 Republicans and one Independent, while the Senate had 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans.

AND during President Clinton's last SIX YEARS, the Republican's held majorities in BOTH houses of Congress.

And guess what, it is not a coincidence that our economic downturn has taken place since the Democrats took control of Congress on January 1, 2007.

Woody: McCain does not propose any significant spending cuts. But he proposes tax cuts that will amount to a 3.3 TRILLION loss in revenues in the coming ten years.

And this in a time when the Economy is on the brink of a recession. We will only get out this mess when we will start investing again in our own country and our own people. In new technologies, in badly needed infrastructural projects, in education. The Republican mantra for decades of ‘tax cuts’ have brought us a country that is coming apart at the seams and has become a house of cards that can collapse any minute.

Woody writes, "Obama tax increases + astronomical new federal spending = financial ruin and redistribution of wealth."
===================================

Tell us something Woody. We see an awful lot of Conservatives talking about Obama increasing this or that. What proof do you have that this will happen?

Does wasting trillions of dollars on Iraq bother you? Of course not. You're a "What If" Conservative. You base your beliefs on "What Ifs" versus ACTUAL fact.

What if Obama raises taxes? What if he does this that or the other? It's actually pretty comical but sad if you ask me.

Tell us something. Do YOU know more about Economics than Greenspan? Could you sit in a room and discuss the financial condition of American with HIS peers?

This is the fundamental problem with America. Instead of sitting down and trying to UNDERSTAND fundemental economics, you would rather rattle off a series of "What Ifs" that aren't rooted in reality.

How's about this one? What if McCain didn't graduate at the bottom of his class? What if McCain wasn't part of the Keating 5? What if McCain actually could tell the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni? What if McCain didn't say he didn't know much about the economy?

If you're going to function on "What Ifs", why not base them on FACT versus fabrications?

Food for thought......

McCain hasn't proposed any cuts in spending.

Oh yeah. ‘Earmarks’, which amount to 0.63% of the Federal Budget (or at max 5% of the current Deficit). That will make a HUGE difference. Where will McCain make spending cuts that account for the rest of the 95% of the deficit?

One element of McCain's tax policies have hardly been discussed yet: the very significant tax increase on the broad group of people who receive health insurance through their employers.

The average cost of health insurance for a family is aroung $12,000. McCain will give you only $5.000 back in a deduction. Meaning you will be taxed on the additional $ 7.000 you've received from your employer and from which you have to pay your insurance.

For a family that is at the bottom of the middle class (80.000), this will amount to a $500 dollar tax increase.

It's not that Greenspan doesn't support McCain's tax cuts, he doesn't support them without appropriate CUTS IN SPENDING! Ta-da! We need to work on both sides of the equation.

McCain tax cuts + cuts in federal spending = path to a balanced budget. See Graham-Rudman.

Obama tax increases + astronomical new federal spending = financial ruin and redistribution of wealth. See Karl Marx.

Obama's rich Hollywood backers will not be subjected to BO's tax increases.
They will just put their money in a Swiss bank.

The small businesses will be punished and lose jobs.

Meanwhile he promises handouts to people that don't even pay taxes.

Obama wants the gov't to control everything we do.

He's wiiling to give incentives to 40% of the population that don't even pay taxes--essentially welfare.

Free Health care to 47 million including illegals.

Take fron those who worked hard and make over $250,000 and give to those that didn't.

He will kill small business and the jobs with them. With high capital gains tax he will kill investors.

I took a Democrat to clean up the economic mess and deficits left by twelve years of "conservative" Republicans in 1992. It's going to take another Democrat to clean up the mess that "conservative" Bush will have left us by 2009.
___________________________________________

1. It took Clinton to clean it up
2. Obama does not have the same skill or know how as Clinton.
3. You guys will pick a democrat like Carter. I am a DEM and even I can see that.

4. This election became a joke for me when the DNC nominated Obama. Someone who has never worked with budgets and got writers to draft a policy for him

66 Million, bot our economy really sucks. It should be $88 million by now. I am sorry that Obama is having such a bad month.