2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 424788]SOS / MOPD:

What a load of patronizing, leftist crap. Obama has raised taxes on every single American. Including those who pay no taxes at all (by deflating the value of the dollars in their pockets). Romney has never stated that he would impose regressive or progressive changes to the tax code. Nice try, though.

The rich elite in America, especially those who didn't earn it (hmmm?) , have always been on the side of the democrats.[/QUOTE]Hubbard came out today with Romney's plan.

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443687504577562842656362660.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop[/url]

His tax will be more regressive according to the article. There is a case too be made that taxes are too progressive right now. The reason Romney will not win in California is that this tax plan will raise taxes on taxpayers who have high deductions such as mortgage interest, property taxes and state income taxes. 25% times $30000 is greater than 30% times $0.

Inflation has been low under Obama. The dollar fell against some currencies like the real, reminimbi and baht but I think that Romney has spoken that the reminimbi is was artificially low against the dollar and would take steps to reduce the discrepancy. Dollar is up against the euro. Gas and food are up but services like house cleaners and gardeners are getting paid the same as what I paid 5 years ago. Mortgage interest is down for everybody that can refinance.

You are liberal- pro gov activities in economic policy and anti gov interventions in social policy. Have fun in BA!

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man; 424775]I just think that we need to pay for the government we have. Obamacare front-loaded all the benefits and back-loaded the taxes. When Romney wins he is going to have a very difficult time pushing back on those benefits. Bush led us into war with Iraq while keeping the expense of the war out of the budget. I think we all would have accepted a tax increase to take down Hussein.

I read Johnson's view on Obamacare and don't necessarily agree. Whose freedom are we protecting anyway? Some of the shooting victims in Aurora had no health insurance. I am sure in the end the taxpayers will cover their costs. Isn't it an infringement on my freedom since I already have good health insurance that I have to cover for these victims? In some ways everybody is already insured and not everyone is paying which does not seem fair. I think that is what Chief Justice Roberts meant that the government has the right to tax for the common good. Are we really ready to watch people bleed to death if they do not have medical coverage? In a libertarian society you need to be willing to let people fail. I do not think I am willing to go to that extreme so you need to make compromises in a libertarian society also.

100 days to BA and I promise I will quit writing this nonsense although the election is over by the time I get there.[/QUOTE]

[blue][Report Deleted by Admin][/blue]

[blue]This 'report' was deleted by Admin because SnakeOilSales is not permitted to post rumors, leaks, gossip or any other unsubstantiated political wet dreams.

I like to remain relatively hands off of the political thread, but SnakeOilSales had demonstrated a propensity towards repeatedly posting innuendo after innuendo, supposition after supposition, and thus I've decided that I'm not going to let him continue to lob these unsubstantiated hand grenades into the discussion.

Like Joe Friday said: "Just the facts, ma'am"

Thanks,

Jackson[/blue]

Why aren't we interested in Obama's income taxes? Whoops, forgot, nobody is interested in tax returns consisting entirely of welfare checks and food stamps.

[QUOTE=El Alamo;424797]Why aren't we interested in Obama's income taxes? Whoops, forgot, nobody is interested in tax returns consisting entirely of welfare checks and food stamps.[/QUOTE]I often wonder where is your source of information.

Somebody close to Obama said the following.

"He's never even had a real job for [God's] sake. And I can tell you from my dealings with him, he has no idea how the real world, that we actually live in, works."

It is worse than we thought. Obama is clueless, a moron living in NeverNeverLand

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 424799]Somebody close to Obama said the following.

"He's never even had a real job for [God's] sake. And I can tell you from my dealings with him, he has no idea how the real world, that we actually live in, works."

It is worse than we thought. Obama is clueless, a moron living in NeverNeverLand[/QUOTE]As I thought all along, it is your milkman.

The words are. El Alamo! Seeing as your selective outrage and editorial standards are pure horse shit! Why have we never seen this [Report Deleted by Admin][/blue]

[blue] This 'report' was deleted by Admin because EL ALAMO is not permitted to post rumors, leaks, gossip or any other unsubstantiated political wet dreams.

I like to remain relatively hands off of the political thread, but EL ALAMO had demonstrated a propensity towards repeatedly posting innuendo after innuendo, supposition after supposition, and thus I've decided that I'm not going to let him continue to lob these unsubstantiated hand grenades into the discussion.

Like Joe Friday said: "Just the facts, ma'am"

Thanks,

Jackson[/blue][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man; 424791]Hubbard came out today with Romney's plan.

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443687504577562842656362660.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop[/url]

His tax will be more regressive according to the article. There is a case too be made that taxes are too progressive right now. The reason Romney will not win in California is that this tax plan will raise taxes on taxpayers who have high deductions such as mortgage interest, property taxes and state income taxes. 25% times $30000 is greater than 30% times $0.

Inflation has been low under Obama. The dollar fell against some currencies like the real, reminimbi and baht but I think that Romney has spoken that the reminimbi is was artificially low against the dollar and would take steps to reduce the discrepancy. Dollar is up against the euro. Gas and food are up but services like house cleaners and gardeners are getting paid the same as what I paid 5 years ago. Mortgage interest is down for everybody that can refinance.[/QUOTE]The only thing that makes taxes progressive at the moment is the temporary suspension of the Social Security tax. When the average citizen pays this FEDERAL tax, the TOTAL Federal tax burden becomes very regressive.

Tres3

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man; 424791]Hubbard came out today with Romney's plan.

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443687504577562842656362660.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop[/url]

His tax will be more regressive according to the article. There is a case too be made that taxes are too progressive right now. The reason Romney will not win in California is that this tax plan will raise taxes on taxpayers who have high deductions such as mortgage interest, property taxes and state income taxes. 25% times $30000 is greater than 30% times $0.[/QUOTE]I must have missed the part where he describes the regressive nature of the potential reforms. I know Glenn, so I will give he a call and ask.

[quote=]Inflation has been low under Obama. The dollar fell against some currencies like the real, reminimbi and baht but I think that Romney has spoken that the reminimbi is was artificially low against the dollar and would take steps to reduce the discrepancy. Dollar is up against the euro. Gas and food are up but services like house cleaners and gardeners are getting paid the same as what I paid 5 years ago. Mortgage interest is down for everybody that can refinance.[/QUOTE]Inflation, as reported by the federal government, is a nearly useless factoid which has been crafted for political and not economic purposes. What two things do you rely more heavily upon, for your survival, other than food and fuel? Further, the Treasury has been printing trillions of dollars which decreases the value of the dollars that you hold, making the commodities that you purchase more expensive (sounds like inflation to me). This dilution of the value of the dollar and anemic interest rates combine to make investment in the dollar less attractive, therefore depressing the value of the dollar versus other major currencies. Free trading FOREX is a pretty straight forward example of supply and demand, although the calculation is fairly complex. If it were not for the perceived security of the dollar (in the face of many types of risk, not the least of which is the deterioration of the Eurozone) , it would have dropped further. One of the things Obama doesn't tell you is that by destroying the value of the dollar, our exports should be less expensive which, under normal circumstances, would increase the volume of our exports (stimulative to the economy). But, like every other parlor trick that this amateur has tried, it has failed. This is due mostly to the complete lack of knowledge and experience from the president on down through all of his sycophants and toadies. In order for that trick to work, there has to be some global economic growth. I am not a fan of deflating the dollar, regardless of the party doing it. I, to this day, would like to hang Nick Brady by his toes (metaphorically, of course. Plus, he is deceased) for doing exactly that.

[QUOTE=Tres3; 424802]The only thing that makes taxes progressive at the moment is the temporary suspension of the Social Security tax. When the average citizen pays this FEDERAL tax, the TOTAL Federal tax burden becomes very regressive.

Tres3[/QUOTE]Are you saying that the current taxation regime is regressive?

I believe that we agree that the social security tax is quite regressive, so its suspension is progressive.

However, the US tax system is anything but regressive. In the US, the bottom 50% of the economic ladder pays no taxes at all. The next 25% of wage earners pay around 13% of all income taxes and the next 25% of wage earners pay 87% of all income taxes. As the amount of income increase, so does the applicable tax rate. That is the definition of progressive taxation. From the IRS, itself (IRS SOI Stats 2009) , published during the reign of our supreme leader:

[quote=]The United States has a progressive income tax structure, meaning that different portions of taxable income are taxed at different rates with the “last” income received being taxed at the highest or marginal tax rate. From the inception of the individual income tax in 1913, tax rates have varied from as low as 1 percent to as high as 94 percent. Since 1916, the IRS has been publishing income and tax statistics based on information reported on federal tax returns filed by U.S. individual taxpayers.[/quote]This bullet is buried a little deeper, after multiple bullets trying to create supporting evidence for the 99%:

[quote=]For returns reporting positive adjusted gross income, the top 1 percent of taxpayers had an average tax rate of 24 percent; the top 10 percent of taxpayers had an average tax rate of 18.1 percent; and the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers had an average tax rate of 1.9 percent.[/quote]

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales; 424795][blue][Report Deleted by Admin][/blue]

[blue]This 'report' was deleted by Admin because SnakeOilSales is not permitted to post rumors, leaks, gossip or any other unsubstantiated political wet dreams.

I like to remain relatively hands off of the political thread, but SnakeOilSales had demonstrated a propensity towards repeatedly posting innuendo after innuendo, supposition after supposition, and thus I've decided that I'm not going to let him continue to lob these unsubstantiated hand grenades into the discussion.

Like Joe Friday said: "Just the facts, ma'am"

Thanks,

Jackson[/blue][/QUOTE]Don't be such a biased hypocrite. I posted a link to a legitimate news story about a current event from a legitimate source (yahoo) to back up the leak. You allow the other participants of this thread to post unsubstantiated nonsense about Obama (birthers, Obama collects food stamps, everyone that supports Obama is subhuman, Obama has destroyed US economy, Obama's goal is the destruction of the USA) without even a link to a legitimate news story to back it up, yet when I post a link to a legitimate source containing pertinent information that MAY play an ENORMOUS role in the outcome of this coming election, you delete it.

Perhaps it is becoming increasingly clear to you that Romney is a terrible candidate and, barring an unforeseen calamitous event before November, has no chance of beating the current POTUS. You are probably exasperated by this and your reaction is to "shoot the messenger"

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 424799]Somebody close to Obama said the following.

"He's never even had a real job for [God's] sake. And I can tell you from my dealings with him, he has no idea how the real world, that we actually live in, works."

It is worse than we thought. Obama is clueless, a moron living in NeverNeverLand[/QUOTE]I saw that, too. I have long said that no matter where Obama is, he is the least qualified and least experienced and least knowledgeable person in the room. I believe that comment has been attributed to John Boehner (R-Ohio) and current Speaker of the House, who is not a Conservative, but is a great improvement over Pelosi, who willing helped lead the rape and pillage of the American taxpayer and our Constitution. Despite Boehner's position, within the opposition, he is absolutely right.

I was saying this stuff before he knocked Hillary out of the primaries. I usually don't read contemporary political books, however, I recently read "The Amateur" by Ed Kline (someone left it at our Dacha). While I was familiar with much of the information contained in the book, it was an excellent read (finished it over a span of 24 hours). He puts a myriad of excellent examples of his amateurism together in one place. It isn't focused on stuff like giving the Queen of England and iPod, preloaded with his own speeches. It is focused on actions and events that illustrate just how unfit for office he really is.

Another thing that you never hear is the fact that the only election he has actually won (without unsealing confidential court documents and using them (illegally) to disparage his opponent) was 2008.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 424805]Are you saying that the current taxation regime is regressive?

I believe that we agree that the social security tax is quite regressive, so its suspension is progressive.

However, the US tax system is anything but regressive. In the US, the bottom 50% of the economic ladder pays no taxes at all. The next 25% of wage earners pay around 13% of all income taxes and the next 25% of wage earners pay 87% of all income taxes. As the amount of income increase, so does the applicable tax rate. That is the definition of progressive taxation. From the IRS, itself (IRS SOI Stats 2009) , published during the reign of our supreme leader:

This bullet is buried a little deeper, after multiple bullets trying to create supporting evidence for the 99%:[/QUOTE]Read the entire post! I said, in capital letters, TOTAL. That means Social Security, Medicare, and Income taxes. Only a small portion of the tax paying population pays 87% of their income in tax. Most of the wealthy can afford good tax planners and advisers, so they pay far less than 87. I agree that the rate increases, but that is only the statutory rate, NOT the actual, effective rate paid. There are quite a few millionaires who pay NO federal taxes. I was one of the "Best and Brightest" who helped them pay no, or very little, Federal tax, and was well compensated for doing so.

I stand by my original post, that without the suspension of the Social Security tax, the TOTAL Federal tax actually paid by the tax paying public is regressive. Many of the poor people who pay no income tax still pay Social Security and Medicare tax. You can call the taxes what you want, but they are still income taxes collected by the Federal Government.

Tres3

[QUOTE=Tres3; 424802]The only thing that makes taxes progressive at the moment is the temporary suspension of the Social Security tax. When the average citizen pays this FEDERAL tax, the TOTAL Federal tax burden becomes very regressive.

Tres3[/QUOTE]What you wrote above is absolutely not true. This is from a recent study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and shows the average tax rate paid by people in various income groups. If you want to check me, go to [url]http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43373[/url] and click on the first supplemental table. The figures below include ALL federal taxes, including social security tax:

Top 1%: 28.9% average federal tax rate.
Top 5%: 24.1% average federal tax rate.
Top 20%: 23.2%
Fourth Quintile: 15.1%
Third Quintile: 11.1%
Second Quintile: 6.8%
Bottom 20%: 1.0%

Your belief is common. I believe it stems from two things:

1. Democrats like Obama knowingly lie because they think it will get them more votes. This is why Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer favor only raising taxes on those making more than $1 million per year. Because they realize the "tax the rich" thing is populist bull shit, and a $1 million threshhold gets them more votes than a $250,000 threshhold. There are a lot of people who make in the $250,000 to $1,000,000 range in San Francisco and Manhattan, and Nancy and Chuck want their votes.

2. The desire of the majority to steal from the minority. People bend the truth to suit their beliefs and desires. They don't realize there are unintended consequences (on businesses, savings and investment) of stealing a large share of income from the wealthy.

If you download the Excel table I describe above on the CBO's web site, you'll see that your argument that the federal tax system would be regressive if not for the 2% reduction in social security tax doesn't wash. There's data there from 1979 to 2009, and the federal tax system is steeply progressive in all years.