Tax Positions Of Obama and McCain

[LadyWrestler]

I think, if you look closely, you will see a lot of blue increases on there.

[featherlou]

Originally Posted by Garmer

I think the colors just indicate declining/increasing national debt and not parties.

That would be my thinking also.

[bluffmanxx]

Originally Posted by Garmer

Are you talking about Obama or the current administration? The economy has been a true disaster during Bush and no real effort seem to have been made in order to correct it even with all the warning signs that has been showing. Americas debt is soon passing 10.000 billion dollar...that's 10.000.000.000.000 dollar! Add the health- and social expenses that the administration has commited to and the number is 53.000 billion dollar (epn.dk - "USA er på fallittens rand"). If we're talking "passing the buck and dooming the following administration to economic failure" then that must be it.
Ironically it's China who's been keeping Americas head above water by increasing their dollar reserves and buying US stocks - but imagine if they had decided to switch to Euros and sell out their dollar reserve. The dollar would be in free fall and the US would be bankrupt.
Anyway, with a debt like this it's going to be unpleasant no matter if it's McCain or Obama in office. I assume the "huge tax hike" is Obamas considerations on imposing a 2 percent to 4 percent tax on incomes above $250,000. Even though it definitely allows him to dodge a political bullet by waiting a decade to implement it, it can hardly be seen as dooming the following administration can it? Also, I find it interesting when McCain wants to expand President Bush's tax cuts and instead "cut down on expenses". Could it possibly be the military expenses he has in mind?

I live in the country that has the highest tax rate in the world (Denmark). The lowest incomes pay about half in taxes and the richest part of the population pay a marginal tax as high as about 70%. Yet several recent reports has listed the danish population as the happiest in the world. That considered, a progressive tax system can't be that bad after all - or in other words having 2 cars instead of 3 wont make the rich people have a shitty life

By the way, did anyone see the movie I.O.U.S.A yet? I haven't had the opportunity yet, but it's probably very relevant for this debate.

just to briefly respond...Bush's economic failings have to do with spending, not tax issues. and the economy, while sluggish, has not been a "true disaster".

[spaceboy761]

Spending issues are just as bad as tax issues. What's the difference?

[Garmer]

Originally Posted by LadyWrestler

I think, if you look closely, you will see a lot of blue increases on there.

Right, but not if you look at the entire term for each sitting president. For instance there is some time with increasing debt during Clinton but overall the debt was declining during his term, hence the blue. That's how it makes most sense to me anyway

[LadyWrestler]

Originally Posted by Garmer

Right, but not if you look at the entire term for each sitting president. For instance there is some time with increasing debt during Clinton but overall the debt was declining during his term, hence the blue. That's how it makes most sense to me anyway

The chart is misleading, IMO, and Democrat, Roosevelt's time (which also includes a major war, after a USA territory was attacked by Japan) as President is missing altogether.

[Garmer]

Originally Posted by bluffmanxx

just to briefly respond...Bush's economic failings have to do with spending, not tax issues. and the economy, while sluggish, has not been a "true disaster".

I guess it depends how you look at it - the Bush administration has overspended but if they hadn't insisted on cutting back on taxes at the same time the problem wouldn't have been as big. True disastermight be a little over the top but I'm sure the thousands of families who've been forced to sell their houses and move elsewhere would use a similar terminology 77.000 houses went on forced sale during July in California and Florida alone. I'm not saying the Bush administration can be blamed for the financial crisis, but I do believe they could have done something earlier to help the problem.
Fortunately, things are starting to look brighter with the dollar and rising stocks but I still consider the economic policy of the current administration as reckless.

I think I might be getting off-topic, so back to the tax-positions of the candidates

[LadyWrestler]

Originally Posted by Garmer

I guess it depends how you look at it - the Bush administration has overspended but if they hadn't insisted on cutting back on taxes at the same time the problem wouldn't have been as big. True disastermight be a little over the top but I'm sure the thousands of families who've been forced to sell their houses and move elsewhere would use a similar terminology 77.000 houses went on forced sale during July in California and Florida alone. I'm not saying the Bush administration can be blamed for the financial crisis, but I do believe they could have done something earlier to help the problem.
Fortunately, things are starting to look brighter with the dollar and rising stocks but I still consider the economic policy of the current administration as reckless.

I think I might be getting off-topic, so back to the tax-positions of the candidates

In that case, electing Obama would be an ever worse disaster! After all, he wants to give "95% of Americans" another tax cut, while installing Socialized Medicine at the same time!

[spaceboy761]

Originally Posted by Garmer

I guess it depends how you look at it - the Bush administration has overspended but if they hadn't insisted on cutting back on taxes at the same time the problem wouldn't have been as big. True disastermight be a little over the top but I'm sure the thousands of families who've been forced to sell their houses and move elsewhere would use a similar terminology 77.000 houses went on forced sale during July in California and Florida alone. I'm not saying the Bush administration can be blamed for the financial crisis, but I do believe they could have done something earlier to help the problem.
Fortunately, things are starting to look brighter with the dollar and rising stocks but I still consider the economic policy of the current administration as reckless.

I think I might be getting off-topic, so back to the tax-positions of the candidates

As someone who does this crap for a living, the current housing crisis is absolutely the fault of no one other than George W. Bush. He has a ridiculous boner for de-regulation. De-regulation is usually a positive step, but he got greedy with it and de-regulated beyond the point of reason. There still has to be some level of regulation to maintain sanity in the market.

[Garmer]

Originally Posted by LadyWrestler

In that case, electing Obama would be an ever worse disaster! After all, he wants to give "95% of Americans" another tax cut, while installing Socialized Medicine at the same time!

Not "worse" than McCain though if we're talking national debt. McCains current programme will add more to the debt than Obama's as far as I know. But both candidates insist on cutting taxes which, from an economic point of view, doesn't seem like the way to go if the economy is going to be balanced. But hey, it gets votes!