Which candidate will tax us more?

Which candidate will tax us more? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events

[Poll]

Obama will be worst than McCain overall

69% (18)

McCain will be worst than Obama overall

30% (8)

Total Votes : 26

(last vote on : 8/1/2008 5:33:44 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

loloidong -> Which candidate will tax us more? (7/8/2008 7:52:16 PM)
Which candidate will tax us more? And as follow-up questions, which candidate will have a platform that is not conducive to a good economy, to creating more jobs (but to losing more jobs)? Which will not pursue the rejuvinating of the dollar? Which is not a friend to property rights and the individual pursuit for higher financial gains?

blessedinnyc -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/8/2008 8:13:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loloidong Which candidate will tax us more? And as follow-up questions, which candidate will have a platform that is not conducive to a good economy, to creating more jobs (but to losing more jobs)? Which will not pursue the rejuvinating of the dollar? Which is not a friend to property rights and the individual pursuit for higher financial gains? I say McCain. It sounds counter-intuitive, but I think the one thing that many supply-siders are missing is that we have this debt burden that we will eventually have to pay for. If we keep borrowing, the debt burden will become larger, and we will eventually face a larger tax burden. If we stop borrowing and instead start hiking taxes to reduce the deficit, we will: 1.) Reduce the current account deficit, making for a stronger dollar. 2.) Reduce our debt, meaning our kids will be able to enjoy lower taxes. It looks like Obama will be able to help do this by ending the war- saving us $200 Billion/year, and by raising taxes. He would be wise to lower corporate taxes and increase capital gains taxes- thus encouraging foreign companies who do business in the US to move here.

PhunkD -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/8/2008 9:27:57 PM)
Right on, blessed. McCain is big on short term gimmicks, a la the gas holiday. Obama will be more prudent for the long haul, even if there is a little bit of pain in the short term.

ljmac -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/9/2008 1:08:24 AM)
Taxes are to liberals what blood is to vampires. Obama has: - voted for a tax increase on incomes over $1 million (I'll take a wild guess. I'll bet the Obama's didn't voluntarily increase their own tax payments. In fact, I know they took deductions. Hypocrits.) - voted no on reducing the alternative minimum tax, which would have exempted many middle class Americans - voted against reducing the death tax - voted against repealing the death tax (Do vampires take blood from grieving relatives?) - voted against permanent estate tax cuts - voted for a capital gains tax increase - voted no on reducing capital gains and dividend taxation - opposes reducing gasoline taxes - there's more The National Taxpayers Union has graded B.O. F (2005), F (2006) and F (2007). B.O. - My tax record stinks Citizens Against Government Waste scored Obama a mere 30% for the 109th Congress, an "unfriendly" to taxpayers rating. McCain scored 95%, a "taxpayer hero," but he was an established hero way before he went to Washington. Tax cuts are to liberals what crosses are to vampires. Come to think of it, crosses are to liberals what crosses are to vampires. gimme, gimme, gimme

blessedinnyc -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/9/2008 10:03:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ljmac Tax cuts are to liberals what crosses are to vampires. Come to think of it, crosses are to liberals what crosses are to vampires. Darnit, we almost had ljmac fooled. I thought we had kept the whole "Dracula takes over the world" conspiracy in the bag. Oh well, guess he revealed the secret that liberals are vampires. Let's see if we can get him to look us directly in the eyes. Or at least stop leaving garlic cloves around his bed.

rlj -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/9/2008 3:10:26 PM)
Well someone has to pay for this: What people who believe in Santa Claus believe we can continously cut taxes and ignore this A link to the Easter Bunny fan club AKA we think our grandkids can handle our mess just fine Oh by the way us liberals aren't vampires we're brain sucking leeches. :P

GroupW -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/9/2008 7:09:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc It sounds counter-intuitive, but I think the one thing that many supply-siders are missing is that we have this debt burden that we will eventually have to pay for.... Counterintuitive, to be sure, but you have a reasonable shot at being correct in the long run. During his term in office, he might tax more, but in the long run if less debt is incurred, there is a decent chance your lifetime tax bill could be less. BT

GroupW -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/9/2008 7:10:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rlj Well someone has to pay for this: What people who believe in Santa Claus believe we can continously cut taxes and ignore this A link to the Easter Bunny fan club AKA we think our grandkids can handle our mess just fine Oh by the way us liberals aren't vampires we're brain sucking leeches. :P I've sucked neither brains nor blood in at least a week and a half.

loloidong -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/9/2008 8:24:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc quote: ORIGINAL: ljmac Tax cuts are to liberals what crosses are to vampires. Come to think of it, crosses are to liberals what crosses are to vampires. Darnit, we almost had ljmac fooled. I thought we had kept the whole "Dracula takes over the world" conspiracy in the bag. Oh well, guess he revealed the secret that liberals are vampires. Let's see if we can get him to look us directly in the eyes. Or at least stop leaving garlic cloves around his bed. That looking-you-in-the-eye thing may be very hard. You guys have hypnotic powers so staring is a bit dangerous. Got to fly. Up, up and away![:D]

SavedByGraceMD -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/9/2008 10:22:01 PM)
The problem remains, not in the taxes, but what is done with them, and Obama wants to spend spend spend, not reduce our debt.

blessedinnyc -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/9/2008 10:56:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD The problem remains, not in the taxes, but what is done with them, and Obama wants to spend spend spend, not reduce our debt. quote: The problem remains, not in the taxes, but what is done with them, and Obama wants to spend spend spend, not reduce our debt. What about the Iraq war? Even if the Kennedies sponsored a rather liquid party in the Senate chamber, we still would have trouble spending $200 Billion/year on pork and social programs. I mean, free beer, flying cars for the homeless, and various amusement parks restricted to those on welfare can only cost so much.

SavedByGraceMD -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/9/2008 11:09:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD The problem remains, not in the taxes, but what is done with them, and Obama wants to spend spend spend, not reduce our debt. quote: The problem remains, not in the taxes, but what is done with them, and Obama wants to spend spend spend, not reduce our debt. What about the Iraq war? Even if the Kennedies sponsored a rather liquid party in the Senate chamber, we still would have trouble spending $200 Billion/year on pork and social programs. I mean, free beer, flying cars for the homeless, and various amusement parks restricted to those on welfare can only cost so much. What about the Obama spend o rama, check this story out http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25496 granted the article is 4 months old, but is this what we have to look forward too? 1.4 trillion in increased spending? So take the war costs off the table if and when he withdraws (and tells the extremists they have won in doing so), should we then replace that spending with more outrageous spending?

Pat-rebel_lady -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/9/2008 11:46:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loloidong Which candidate will tax us more? And as follow-up questions, which candidate will have a platform that is not conducive to a good economy, to creating more jobs (but to losing more jobs)? Which will not pursue the rejuvinating of the dollar? Which is not a friend to property rights and the individual pursuit for higher financial gains? I say Obama will not have a platform conducive to a good economy, to creating more jobs (but to losing more jobs)? Which will not pursue the rejuvenating of the dollar? Which is not a friend to property rights and the individual pursuit for higher financial gains.

loloidong -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/10/2008 2:52:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GroupW quote: ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc It sounds counter-intuitive, but I think the one thing that many supply-siders are missing is that we have this debt burden that we will eventually have to pay for.... Counterintuitive, to be sure, but you have a reasonable shot at being correct in the long run. During his term in office, he might tax more, but in the long run if less debt is incurred, there is a decent chance your lifetime tax bill could be less. BT That depends on what you mean by taxing more. Bush received more taxes even when he lowered tax rates. So he taxed more also. Lowering tax rates encouraged the use of money therefore more went to the government's coffers. Depends also on what Obama will use the money for. He has a plan to increase the size of the government so this means more money is needed. Less debt is not assured by any government. Certainly not assured by a government that promises to increase its size.

loloidong -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/10/2008 2:55:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ljmac Taxes are to liberals what blood is to vampires. Obama has: - voted for a tax increase on incomes over $1 million (I'll take a wild guess. I'll bet the Obama's didn't voluntarily increase their own tax payments. In fact, I know they took deductions. Hypocrits.) - voted no on reducing the alternative minimum tax, which would have exempted many middle class Americans - voted against reducing the death tax - voted against repealing the death tax (Do vampires take blood from grieving relatives?) - voted against permanent estate tax cuts - voted for a capital gains tax increase - voted no on reducing capital gains and dividend taxation - opposes reducing gasoline taxes - there's more The National Taxpayers Union has graded B.O. F (2005), F (2006) and F (2007). B.O. - My tax record stinks Citizens Against Government Waste scored Obama a mere 30% for the 109th Congress, an "unfriendly" to taxpayers rating. McCain scored 95%, a "taxpayer hero," but he was an established hero way before he went to Washington. Tax cuts are to liberals what crosses are to vampires. Come to think of it, crosses are to liberals what crosses are to vampires. gimme, gimme, gimme Wow. Thanks for the info.

jfwink -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/11/2008 4:44:29 PM)
Wow, who will tax us more? That should be a no brainer that Obama is going to tax more. Its part of the essence of his side of the aisle, that is for government to do more, provide more, etc. Those services have to be paid for by taxpayers.

todd_t -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/11/2008 6:48:09 PM)
quote: Taxes are to liberals what blood is to vampires Considering how deep in debt we are to Communist China after Bush has borrowed hundreds of billions from them to finance the Iraq War, how can the next president possibly avoid a tax hike to help bail us all out of hock? quote: [Obama] has a plan to increase the size of the government so this means more money is needed. Considering the degree of government expansion under Bush and Cheney since 2000, Obama will indeed have his work cut out for him if he wants to beat their example.

loloidong -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/11/2008 7:17:15 PM)
Money borrowed for the DoD is high alright. But that is not just for the war. The war is just a fraction of the DoD budget. But higher still goes to health and human services and social security administration. Besides, the president has very little power to affect our economy. It is congress that you should be looking at because the federal budget goes through them with all their earmark programs and pet projects. Just like the war, they are not as powerless as they pretend to be. They are the ones that often has a bigger effect on a lot of things and most of them are things you blame on the administration. http://www.federalbudget.com/changeCongress.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

rlj -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/11/2008 9:47:00 PM)
So the point of your 2 links is if you want a balanced budget make sure there is a democrat in the White House? I was never overly impressed with Bill Clinton but if he was able to veto a bill in 1984 while he was still in Arkansas before he got elected President he must have been far more powerful than I ever gave him credit for.

doublecross -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/13/2008 3:18:59 AM)
WRT the budget, the President's office sends a budget baseline then the Congressional Budget Office reviews it. The congress then modifies it by eigther adding or impossing limits to own spending. Then they approve it. The one that bloats the budget are the congressional earmarks and pork-barrel spending. They are out of control. There is a move to reform these but with the current congress, this is nearly an impossible task. BTW, it's always been congress that has the biggest role in balancing the budget not the President. Clinton's budget was balanced by Republican spending reductions. Clinton sent a budget baseline and instead of adding more to it the congress made many reductions in their own spending. Hence a balance budget. Obama's vision of increasing the role of government + the current attitude of congress on earmarks and pork-barrel spending, there is no way that we are looking at any reductions soon.

rlj -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/13/2008 1:19:42 PM)
quote: The one that bloats the budget are the congressional earmarks and pork-barrel spending. They are out of control. There is a move to reform these but with the current congress, this is nearly an impossible task. Four letters - VETO. If Dubya cared about fiscal responsibility and small government he'd have vetoed those. I believe that every budget signed by Bush has been a record high budget and the budgets he signed set records for most earmarks and spending on earmarks. The buck stops here. That's his desk. He had the power to stop it and chose not to.

doublecross -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/13/2008 7:10:25 PM)
The veto of the President requires the support of two-thirds of the Members voting. If two-thirds of both chambers have agreed to the budget a veto cannot override their votes. The administration and congress need to have a budget deal by a certain time period in order to keep the federal government functioning. Otherwise a lockdown on the budget could halt necessary services.

rlj -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/13/2008 9:41:16 PM)
quote: The veto of the President requires the support of two-thirds of the Members voting. If two-thirds of both chambers have agreed to the budget a veto cannot override their votes. Quite right the 4 years that I did a quick look up on easily passed with about 75%. Amazing how Republicans and Democrats can work together to waste money. [8\|] quote: The administration and congress need to have a budget deal by a certain time period in order to keep the federal government functioning. Otherwise a lockdown on the budget could halt necessary services. I remember that happening under Clinton's 2nd term. I remember being quite happy that the government was functioning at reduced capabilities... I figured there were fewer things they could screw up that way. ; ) It still doesn't change the fact that the only 4 balanced budgets going back over 30 years were signed by a Democratic president and all of the records were from a Republican congress and a Republican President.

doublecross -> RE: Which candidate will tax us more? (7/13/2008 10:31:22 PM)
If the president has very little to do with the economy and much of it is through the hands of congress, as evidenced by Clinton and the Republican Congress. I personally believe that if GW's admin does not have a balance budget when the republicans were in congress, and now much worst with this democratic congress, a democrat president would be an editon to the recipe of overblown budget. Veto will be a thing of history.

Page: [1]