Comments on: McCain is odd man out as debate on war in Iraq dramatically shifts to Obama’s favor http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/ Pat Cunningham offers an unabashedly liberal perspective on national politics. A note of caution: The language gets a litttle salty on some of the sites to which this blog links. So, don't say you weren't warned. By the way, this blog's name is inspired by the Will Rogers quote, "All politics is applesauce." Thu, 8 Jan 2009 01:12:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.2.4 By: Echo4Charlie http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/#comment-4212 Echo4Charlie Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:14:13 +0000 http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/#comment-4212 Warren Buffett obviously sees personal financial gain from Senator Obama's plan. That's why the "endorsement". That doesn't apply to the blue collar-through middle management contingent in the US. One thing that government and congress (in particular) need to do is review and relate different grants (for continuing education) to today's economy, and income. Minimum wage goes up, but I've seen no qualifier as in availability of grants for those who would like to go back to college to start toward, or finish, their degrees, so that they can increase their earning potential. Warren Buffett obviously sees personal financial gain from Senator Obama’s plan. That’s why the “endorsement”. That doesn’t apply to the blue collar-through middle management contingent in the US.

One thing that government and congress (in particular) need to do is review and relate different grants (for continuing education) to today’s economy, and income. Minimum wage goes up, but I’ve seen no qualifier as in availability of grants for those who would like to go back to college to start toward, or finish, their degrees, so that they can increase their earning potential.

]]> By: Mike Carroll http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/#comment-4199 Mike Carroll Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:47:25 +0000 http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/#comment-4199 Optimistic1-you tax rich people more because they normally vote Republican and are therefore evil unless they are Warren Buffett then you make sure that they know that their tax shelters will still be in place once you are elected. Optimistic1-you tax rich people more because they normally vote Republican and are therefore evil unless they are Warren Buffett then you make sure that they know that their tax shelters will still be in place once you are elected.

]]> By: Mike Carroll http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/#comment-4198 Mike Carroll Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:43:46 +0000 http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/#comment-4198 Pat-so when the debate is lost you bring up a few endorsements?BTW-Warren Buffett is a great investor. That doesn't mean he is a great economist. Pat-so when the debate is lost you bring up a few endorsements?BTW-Warren Buffett is a great investor. That doesn’t mean he is a great economist.

]]> By: Pat Cunningham http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/#comment-4197 Pat Cunningham Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:45:47 +0000 http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/#comment-4197 Mike: Obama knows enough about the economy that he's been endorsed by Warren Buffett, former Fed chief Paul Volcker and former Securities and Exchange Commission chairmen William Donaldson, Arthur Levitt and David Ruder. Meanwhile, McCain had to throw his chief economic adviser under the bus. Mike: Obama knows enough about the economy that he’s been endorsed by Warren Buffett, former Fed chief Paul Volcker and former Securities and Exchange Commission chairmen William Donaldson, Arthur Levitt and David Ruder. Meanwhile, McCain had to throw his chief economic adviser under the bus.

]]> By: Optimistic1 http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/#comment-4196 Optimistic1 Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:01:37 +0000 http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/#comment-4196 Pat - All Bush numbers aside, so the accepted premise on your side is the wealthy deserve to be taxed more and it is justified? Why is this? Leave the SUPER wealthy out of it, a guy making $170k a year pays 30% more tax from a PERCENTAGE STANDPOINT than than a guy making $70k a year. For doing what? Working hard (Or Not) and achieving more success financially than the guy making $70k and he is penalized for it? I don't understand the rationale that because one makes more money, one owes a higher percentage to the government. A gay couple is not allowed the same tax breaks as a married couple, front page story historically. I feel this is a disservice and needs to be corrected, but why is it any different than a 3 million dollar estate being charged a tax of 1 million dollars AFTER already being taxed at a higher percentage while earned than the gay couple noted above? It should work both ways, but the wealthy are one minority which you seem to have no problem penalizing for doing NOTHING more than having money. Why is it justified to discriminate against someone with money for no other reason when you are such a strong advocate for others being discriminated against on false grounds like race or sexual preference? Should we start taxing social security benefits if you own a home simply because you have been successful enough to be a homeowner? How about if you were ever able to afford owning a pet? Ever successful enough to have belonged to the YMCA? All the same principle on a smaller scale of course, but it makes my point. All of the above are unjustified in my opinion. Pat - All Bush numbers aside, so the accepted premise on your side is the wealthy deserve to be taxed more and it is justified? Why is this? Leave the SUPER wealthy out of it, a guy making $170k a year pays 30% more tax from a PERCENTAGE STANDPOINT than than a guy making $70k a year. For doing what? Working hard (Or Not) and achieving more success financially than the guy making $70k and he is penalized for it? I don’t understand the rationale that because one makes more money, one owes a higher percentage to the government.

A gay couple is not allowed the same tax breaks as a married couple, front page story historically. I feel this is a disservice and needs to be corrected, but why is it any different than a 3 million dollar estate being charged a tax of 1 million dollars AFTER already being taxed at a higher percentage while earned than the gay couple noted above? It should work both ways, but the wealthy are one minority which you seem to have no problem penalizing for doing NOTHING more than having money. Why is it justified to discriminate against someone with money for no other reason when you are such a strong advocate for others being discriminated against on false grounds like race or sexual preference? Should we start taxing social security benefits if you own a home simply because you have been successful enough to be a homeowner? How about if you were ever able to afford owning a pet? Ever successful enough to have belonged to the YMCA? All the same principle on a smaller scale of course, but it makes my point. All of the above are unjustified in my opinion.

]]> By: Mike Carroll http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/#comment-4195 Mike Carroll Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:19:44 +0000 http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/#comment-4195 Craig-not really sure what you are saying but I don't worry about the top 1% either. I worry about an economic philosophy (Obama's) that thinks that you can raise tax rates and not impact the economy. You will slow the economy and its the middle class that will suffer with job losses when you do. The 1% will be just fine. Craig-not really sure what you are saying but I don’t worry about the top 1% either. I worry about an economic philosophy (Obama’s) that thinks that you can raise tax rates and not impact the economy. You will slow the economy and its the middle class that will suffer with job losses when you do. The 1% will be just fine.

]]> By: Mike Carroll http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/#comment-4194 Mike Carroll Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:14:47 +0000 http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/#comment-4194 Pat-I'm going to try this one more time assuming that we are debating in good faith. The 2003 tax cuts were across the board. All income levels, ergo, lower percentages for your middle class. What is a middle class income by the way. I'm curious as to how you define it. Yes-rich folks pay a smaller percentage of their income with the tax cuts. I never said otherwise.However, they are paying more actual dollars in taxes. It is actually quite simple. 20% of 2 dollars is more that 30% of 1 dollar. If the economy grows and incomes increase with low tax rates ( and the rich no longer have reason to limit their income or tax shelter it) revenues increase.BTW, the last I checked tax revenues have exploded in the last few years. Revenues aren't the issue with the deficit, out of control spending is the issue. Hell Pat, even the Europeans have started to figure this out. They are cutting business and personal tax rates to spur economic growth. See Ireland. Pat-I’m going to try this one more time assuming that we are debating in good faith.
The 2003 tax cuts were across the board. All income levels, ergo, lower percentages for your middle class. What is a middle class income by the way. I’m curious as to how you define it.
Yes-rich folks pay a smaller percentage of their income with the tax cuts. I never said otherwise.However, they are paying more actual dollars in taxes. It is actually quite simple. 20% of 2 dollars is more that 30% of 1 dollar. If the economy grows and incomes increase with low tax rates ( and the rich no longer have reason to limit their income or tax shelter it) revenues increase.BTW, the last I checked tax revenues have exploded in the last few years. Revenues aren’t the issue with the deficit, out of control spending is the issue.
Hell Pat, even the Europeans have started to figure this out.
They are cutting business and personal tax rates to spur economic growth. See Ireland.

]]> By: Pat Cunningham http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/#comment-4191 Pat Cunningham Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:46:06 +0000 http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/#comment-4191 Mike: Your numbers (or the WSJ's numbers) don't say what you say they say. You've got numbers for, respectively, the top 1 percent, the top 10 percent and the top 50 percent, the latter of which covers just about all payers of income taxes. But there's a big gap between 10 percent and 50 percent. None of your numbers tell me whether middle-income folks are paying bigger percentages of their incomes in taxes since the Bush cuts were enacted. Everything I've seen so far suggests that they are. Nor can you show me numbers that dispute the incontrovertible fact that rich folks are paying smaller percentages of their incomes in taxes in the wake of the Bush cuts. Another question the WSJ article doesn't answer: Are total tax revenues up or down since the Bush cuts. I suspect that they're down, which means the cuts have contributed to growth in federal deficits. Here's some stuff for you to ponder, stuff you won't see in Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal (a sister medium of Fox News, by the way): http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm Mike: Your numbers (or the WSJ’s numbers) don’t say what you say they say. You’ve got numbers for, respectively, the top 1 percent, the top 10 percent and the top 50 percent, the latter of which covers just about all payers of income taxes. But there’s a big gap between 10 percent and 50 percent. None of your numbers tell me whether middle-income folks are paying bigger percentages of their incomes in taxes since the Bush cuts were enacted. Everything I’ve seen so far suggests that they are. Nor can you show me numbers that dispute the incontrovertible fact that rich folks are paying smaller percentages of their incomes in taxes in the wake of the Bush cuts. Another question the WSJ article doesn’t answer: Are total tax revenues up or down since the Bush cuts. I suspect that they’re down, which means the cuts have contributed to growth in federal deficits. Here’s some stuff for you to ponder, stuff you won’t see in Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal (a sister medium of Fox News, by the way):
http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm

]]> By: Craig Knauss http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/#comment-4190 Craig Knauss Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:39:14 +0000 http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/#comment-4190 Mike gets wrapped up in his statistics. But they don't tell everything. For example, he says, "The top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006...." But Pat's question was regarding income tax as a percentage of individual incomes, not the aggregate collected. I remember way back when I had a government finance class, the Brookings Institute stated something like the top 10% of the income earners made something like 90% of the aggregate income. But the middle 50% paid about 85% of all income taxes. Of course, that was years ago. But keep in mind, that there are people out there who make hundreds of millions of dollars, or more, each year. One bigwig, making $200M per year, makes as much as 6,700 workers getting $30,000 each. But those 6,700 workers pay more total tax. Howard Hughes used to make as much in a year as about 20,000 of his employees, but had more of it sheltered, etc., than they did. And there is a good percentage of the population that doesn’t pay any taxes, because they don’t make enough to live on. I’ll worry about the abused top 1% when I get there. But it won’t be for quite a while. Mike gets wrapped up in his statistics. But they don’t tell everything. For example, he says, “The top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006….” But Pat’s question was regarding income tax as a percentage of individual incomes, not the aggregate collected. I remember way back when I had a government finance class, the Brookings Institute stated something like the top 10% of the income earners made something like 90% of the aggregate income. But the middle 50% paid about 85% of all income taxes. Of course, that was years ago. But keep in mind, that there are people out there who make hundreds of millions of dollars, or more, each year. One bigwig, making $200M per year, makes as much as 6,700 workers getting $30,000 each. But those 6,700 workers pay more total tax. Howard Hughes used to make as much in a year as about 20,000 of his employees, but had more of it sheltered, etc., than they did. And there is a good percentage of the population that doesn’t pay any taxes, because they don’t make enough to live on. I’ll worry about the abused top 1% when I get there. But it won’t be for quite a while.

]]> By: Mike Carroll http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/#comment-4189 Mike Carroll Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:08:49 +0000 http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/21/mccain-is-odd-man-out-as-debate-on-war-in-iraq-dramatically-shifts-to-obamas-favor/#comment-4189 Lower and Lower.I thought that was obvious from my answer. Lower and Lower.I thought that was obvious from my answer.

]]>