Presidential Debate #3: 9 PM ET, 10/15/08

[thedecline19]

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

thats what happened this year with the "stimulus" package. they only gave out checks to those who make under x dollars (dependant on whether you were single or joint filing). not it didnt work. james millionaire and joe plumber/six-pack/electrician/etc will both spend the money, save the money or invest the money. their is no wealth creation that you see from a business. businesses create wealth.

the problem with the stimulus plan came because the government was giving back money it didn't have. The reason a higher tax on businesses and a lower tax on the middle class is different is that while "joe six pack" (god i hate that) gets tax relief the upper brackets get taxes raised. We're taking money from people who don't need it to purchase goods (because they already have expendable money) and giving it to those who do need it to have the purchasing power to purchase goods. This allows the government to distribute funding to the middle class while avoiding going deeper into debt, to the peril of the country.

[fourteenandoh]

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

do you think he whiffed or do you think he backed him into the corner as obama dodge stuff and then never swung for the ko.

i laughed to myself watching it mccain made a comment about obamas plan as nailing jello to the wall. thats dead on to obamas style. obama is begining to remind me of bill clinton, hes an elusive guy to nail down and get. hes never wrong but evades questions, turns them and works his way out of the tough spots. kudos to obama for that.

Obama is very slimy, i agree. He has done a great job of wiggling out of every shady association and mistake he has made to date. Like you say, kudos to Obama.

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

thats a lot more voters, lets pander to win the election to feed the special interest machine to make the politician lobbyists etc rich. im fully convinced its not about the best policy its about the most seats.

heck here we can have one of our biggest conservatives and biggest liberal and they can agree on this kind of stuff. life is a lot easier without a hand in the cookie jar.



or put up a proctectionist front.

while were at it, lets become "oil indpendent" and one of those ways is increase gas mileage. do we need to remind these two less than 1/3 or our oil usage is for automobiles?



many choices are made on marginal rates (next dollar rates). corporations and small businesses pass taxes on to consumers. look at it this way, if exxon is charged a windfall tax who will pay for it. exxon. how? they will raise their gas price to cover the cost. or they cut production, this lowers supply and raises prices. some how they finagle their way into the most money they can, doing their job-creating value for the shareholder. which i bet if you own a mutual fund you likely have exxon, so you are an owner. end of the day is if you find a way to "get even" with exxon for making money, consumers pay for it, not the business.

pt 1, the pandering is rediculous. it would be nice to have someone suggest a plan that would actually be good for america instead of good for their career or their party or their lobbyists.

pt 2, why doesn't america understand this? a corporation is not a thing in and of itself. when a politician says evil corporation, they are in reality calling the american citizens that work there and invest there evil. if you tax a corporation, you are taxing the owners and they will pass on the cost to the consumers.

[Tresselbeliever]

Originally Posted by thedecline19

the problem with the stimulus plan came because the government was giving back money it didn't have. The reason a higher tax on businesses and a lower tax on the middle class is different is that while "joe six pack" (god i hate that) gets tax relief the upper brackets get taxes raised. We're taking money from people who don't need it to purchase goods (because they already have expendable money) and giving it to those who do need it to have the purchasing power to purchase goods. This allows the government to distribute funding to the middle class while avoiding going deeper into debt, to the peril of the country.

You are right about one thing, and that is the problem that the government is giving back money that it doesn't have. Look, I'm not against tax cuts for the middle class to drive up demand, but what I am against is the notion that just because you make 250k, the gov't ought to reach into your pocket and give it to someone else. That is wrong. It's a disincentive, because 250k is within reach of a lot of Americans, and it's big government.

Originally Posted by fourteenandoh

pt 2, why doesn't america understand this? a corporation is not a thing in and of itself. when a politician says evil corporation, they are in reality calling the american citizens that work there and invest there evil. if you tax a corporation, you are taxing the owners and they will pass on the cost to the consumers.

I have big problems with Obama's distribution of wealth, but I also have problem with McCain's tax cut for mainly the wealthy and for large corporations. Markets are created by supply and demand. So when asset bubbles burst, and the demand just isn't there anymore, do you really think that supply-side tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations would really help the economy?

Imagine that you are the CEO of Citigroup, and you are thinking to yourself, geez, we got this outdated IT system that really needs to be integrated better to create more efficiency and productivity to create better value for our shareholders, and we just got this two billion dollar tax cut from the gov't, am I really going to invest this tax cut on the company's IT infrastructure or create more jobs by opening up more branches when I don't even know if I can renew my financing for the upcoming quarter? No, you are going to hold on to that money and see what happens, or you are going to pass it back to the shareholders in the form of dividends to compensate for lackluster earnings.

Likewise, if you are the CEO of Exxon, and you think to yourself, oil prices have really gone down because of the slowing of the real economy, and that has really impacted the projected earnings for some of the pipeline projects that my staff has in mind, are you going to invest that money when oil is low, or when it's high, when it's much easier to justify the returns. Of course you are going to invest when it's high.

So that's just two examples of why tax cuts right now would not really improve the real economy in raw material, manufacturing or service. So I'm opposed to both candidate's plan.

[jimotis4heisman]

1-citigroup is getting is tail kicked in right now. not profitable. toss them in with ford/gm they wont pay taxes this year with these new quarterly loses..

14 makes good points also.

tbeliever im with you. one plan is bad, one worse..

[thedecline19]

Originally Posted by Tresselbeliever

You are right about one thing, and that is the problem that the government is giving back money that it doesn't have. Look, I'm not against tax cuts for the middle class to drive up demand, but what I am against is the notion that just because you make 250k, the gov't ought to reach into your pocket and give it to someone else. That is wrong. It's a disincentive, because 250k is within reach of a lot of Americans, and it's big government.

the government would just be taking back taxes from the upper income brackets that it should have collected previously, before wealthier individuals were given tax breaks.

I also don't think that 250k is a disincentive. I'd gladly take the tax hit if it meant moving into the 250k yearly income bracket. The reality is that 250k is NOT within reach of a lot of Americans. About 10% of the U.S. population makes over 100k yearly, let alone 250k.

[Tresselbeliever]

the government would just be taking back taxes from the upper income brackets that it should have collected previously, before wealthier individuals were given tax breaks.

that it should have previously collected? by what standard is the word 'should' defined? if the gov't wants to reach into your pocket then it should?

I also don't think that 250k is a disincentive. I'd gladly take the tax hit if it meant moving into the 250k yearly income bracket. The reality is that 250k is NOT within reach of a lot of Americans. About 10% of the U.S. population makes over 100k yearly, let alone 250k.

making 250k is not a disincentive but having to pay 100k in taxes is. And where is that 100k going? Oh idk, Iraq? expensive medical treatments for people that can't afford them?

[jimotis4heisman]

Income - Main
here is income information


lets discuss marginal rates.

like i said im for buring the whole tax code. every page of it.

[fourteenandoh]

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

Income - Main
here is income information


lets discuss marginal rates.

like i said im for buring the whole tax code. every page of it.

have you read neal bortz' book?

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by fourteenandoh

have you read neal bortz' book?

how simple is it. like if you score more points youll win the game? thats how simple i want the tax code.

$x income*rate (3 or four brackets, i realize one of those brackets will be a 0%)=federal tax

now i realize you have to work in corporations and what not slightly more complicated but the fact someone who makes 400k backs their way in to not paying taxes (or those who make millions) why normal people who work hard pays 14% is a joke, imo.

[fourteenandoh]

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

how simple is it. like if you score more points youll win the game? thats how simple i want the tax code.

its actually simpler than that. 32% sales tax on everything and no corporate tax. done and done

[DaytonBuck]

Originally Posted by fourteenandoh

pt 2, why doesn't america understand this? a corporation is not a thing in and of itself. when a politician says evil corporation, they are in reality calling the american citizens that work there and invest there evil. if you tax a corporation, you are taxing the owners and they will pass on the cost to the consumers.

One of the more popular white person activities of the past fifteen years is attempting to educate others on the evils of multi-national corporations. White people love nothing more than explaining to you how Wal*Mart, McDonalds, Microsoft, Halliburton are destroying the Earth?s culture and resources.

When engaging in a conversation about corporate evils it is important to NEVER, EVER mention Apple Computers, Target or Ikea in the same breath as the companies mentioned earlier. White people prefer to hate corporations that don?t make stuff that they like.

Stuff White People Like