Originally Posted By DouglasDubh In other words, Pres Bush didn't do enough to stop the liberals from ruining the economy, so we should elect a liberal to fix it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Of course, that's not what SportGoofy is saying at all. Great posts, SG. Tell it!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<This was an accounting trick by the Bush administration -- let people get more in their paychecks to trick them into thinking they are paying more taxes, then have them pay it all back and then some at the end of the year. It was a good trick. A lot of working class people fell for it.>> It was no trick. Please give me the source of your information. Mine is here: <a href="http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf</a>
Originally Posted By Skellington88 I dont understand. Just because Lehman brothers supported obama that makes obama a bad guy??
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy For post 43: Find me with a table that doesn't include the tax cut provisions for dividends, capital gains, and cuts for people who itemize. Over half of all Americans do not itemize their deductions, which leads them to not take advantage of some tax breaks. Additionally, most low-income, working class taxpayers derive no income from capital gains for dividends. The table you provided assumes a certain level of participation in captial gains and dividends for all income levels that is a disconnect with how taxes are levied to the lunchbucket crowd that pays nearly all of their federal taxes through the withholding in their paycheck.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<In other words, Pres Bush didn't do enough to stop the liberals from ruining the economy, so we should elect a liberal to fix it.>> First time I have ever heard of the banking establishment referred to as "liberals".
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Find me with a table that doesn't include the tax cut provisions for dividends, capital gains, and cuts for people who itemize. Over half of all Americans do not itemize their deductions, which leads them to not take advantage of some tax breaks. Additionally, most low-income, working class taxpayers derive no income from capital gains for dividends. The table you provided assumes a certain level of participation in captial gains and dividends for all income levels that is a disconnect with how taxes are levied to the lunchbucket crowd that pays nearly all of their federal taxes through the withholding in their paycheck.>> Yup. Even Warren Buffet has pointed this out. He pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary. Bless that incredibly low capital gains tax rate!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip The tax rates were reduced. Period. End of story. How can I take anything you guys say seriously when you don’t even get it right on the easily verifiable stuff? Tax Rates 2001 0 - 27,050 15% 27,050 - 66,050 27.5% 66,550 - 136,750 30.5% 136,750 - 297,350 35.5% 297,350 and Above 39.1% 2008 0 - 8,025 10% 8,025 - 32,550 15% 32,550 - 78,850 25% 78,850 - 164,550 28% 164,550 - 357,700 33% 357,700 and Above 35% A single person making $25,000 in 2001 would have paid $3,750 in taxes. A single person making $25,000 in 2008 would pay $3,348.75 in taxes. That is a 10.7% tax cut. Source: <a href="http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm" target="_blank">http://www.moneychimp.com/feat...kets.htm</a>
Originally Posted By mawnck >>The tax rates were reduced. Period. End of story.<< Meanwhile, spending went through the roof.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy According to your table, the 15% bracket applies in both the scenarios you show. Not sure how you get a different amount of taxes paid for someone in the same 15% bracket.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<According to your table, the 15% bracket applies in both the scenarios you show. Not sure how you get a different amount of taxes paid for someone in the same 15% bracket.>> I guess you've never done your own taxes, huh? Those are marginal tax rates. In 2001 you would pay 15% on the entire $25,000. In 2008 you would pay 10% on the first $8,025 of your income and 15% on the remainder.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Who does their own taxes anymore? That's what TurboTax is for. Unless you are John McCain and don't know how to use a computer . . .
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I dont understand. Just because Lehman brothers supported obama that makes obama a bad guy?> No.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Unless you are John McCain and don't know how to use a computer . . .> What next? Are you going to start saying he doesn't know how to comb his hair or tie a tie? He doesn't use a computer because he can't type because his arms were broken multiple times by the vietcong.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Who does their own taxes anymore? That's what TurboTax is for. Unless you are John McCain and don't know how to use a computer . . .<< I'm pretty sure doing your own taxes requires knowing how many houses you have, too.
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP We have this great book by P.J. O'Rourke* called _Eat the Rich: A Treatise on Econmics_ in which is quotes Milton and Rose Friedman. According to the Friedmans there are only 4 ways to spend money: 1. Spend your money on yourself 2. Spend your money on someone else. 3. Spend other people's money on yourself. 4. Spend other people's money on someone else. 1 usually leads to fairly resposible spending, 2,3, and 4 do not. The problem is almost all government spending is number 4. The chances that any of that spending is going to be the most efficient thing is more by chance than anything else. To quote P.J: " We may say something like, 'people have a right to food, a right to housing, and a right to a good job for decnt pay.' But from an economist's perspective, all those rights involve making finite goods meet infinite wants. Unless the fair society generates tremendous economic growth--which societies that pur fairness first have trouble doing--the goods will come from redistribution. Try reprasing the rights statement thus: 'people have a right to my food, a right to my houseing, and a right to my good job for my decent pay' "
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP * I ment to add that I know that PJ O'Rourke does not pretend to be neuteral, he is a noted conservative talking head.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>* I ment to add that I know that PJ O'Rourke does not pretend to be neuteral, he is a noted conservative talking head.<< But not a crazy one. I don't always agree with him, but he's a pretty likable fellow to me. I like conservative commentators like him: logical and reasonable, not just full of outrage, faux patriotism, and a "Jesus said so!" attitude.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << He doesn't use a computer because he can't type because his arms were broken multiple times by the vietcong. >> We've been through this before Doug. McCain has famously claimed in his "maverick" fashion that he doesn't know how to use a computer. He meant exactly what he said. He didn't say that he was physically limited in his computer use. He said he doesn't know how to use one. There's a difference. He's out of touch with the way the world works in the year 2008. McCain should have run for President in 1980. That's about where his relevancy to current day topics ends.
Originally Posted By andyll <<Exactly which Bush administration polices destroyed the banking industry?>> 1) The massive deregulation over the last 10 years… especially in the securitization of mortgages and the derivative markets. 2) The budget cutting of the agency’s that oversee financial companies. 3) The ballooning deficit. 4) The free falling dollar. 5) The in-stability in the middle east. 6) The Fed/Treasury’s policy to keep cutting rates to prop up the market. 7) Not taking any of the correct actions to head off the housing crisis. We still do not know how many of the CMO/MBS securities are risky.
