If Obama wins the election

[integra_gsr98]

Largest tax increase in the history of the United States, just like Bill Clinton.

[Guest]

integra_gsr98;244458 wrote:
Largest tax increase in the history of the United States, just like Bill Clinton.

Even though his tax rates were lower than that of Reagan?

[Guest]

Might want to look at factcheck.org there Nick. Your good friend Ronald Reagan signed the largest tax increase in the history of the United States.

In speeches and fundraising appeals the Bush campaign keeps making a distorted claim that Clinton 's 1993 tax increase -- supported by Kerry -- was "the biggest in history."

Republicans have been repeating this gross overstatement for more than a decade, but now there's less justification for it than ever. The GOP claim is contradicted by a study published last year by the Office of Tax Analysis of Bush's own Treasury Department.

Analysis
On Tax Day, April 15, the Bush campaign was still re-cycling this decade-old claim in an e-mail sent to supporters, asking for more campaign contributions:

Bush himself said it in his first overtly political speech of the campaign on March 20:

*

      Bush: Over the years, he's (Kerry) voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people including the biggest tax increase in American history.

  And Vice President Cheney told the US Chamber of Commerce March 29:

      Cheney:  A career highlight was his  (Kerry's)vote in favor of the largest tax increase in American history .

But that bit of political puffery has always been based on a simplistic tally of the number of dollars the Clinton tax bill yielded, without regard for population growth, rising incomes, or inflation.

Now comes a thorough study of every tax bill enacted since 1940, showing that the Clinton tax increase was indeed large, but not the largest.

A tax increase in 1942 boosted federal revenues by 71%, for example, as the US geared up for war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Measured in inflation-adjusted 1992 dollars, Roosevelt's wartime increase amounted to $73 billion a year, while Clinton's increase averaged $35 billion a year (average for the first two years.)

The study said that inflation-adjusted "constant dollars" is probably only the second -best measure of the size of a tax increase. "The single best measure for most purposes is probably the revenue effect as a percentage of GDP." That's Gross Domestic Product, the way we gauge the size of the economy. Clinton's tax increase isn't the biggest by that "best" measure, either. In the period since 1968, the study said, "the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was the biggest increase." That was the tax increase signed by Ronald Reagan, rescinding some of the effects of his huge tax cut passed the year before.

That 1982 tax increase only slightly exceeded Clinton's in inflation-adjusted dollars ($37 billion a year vs.. $32 billion) but it was much bigger in relation to the size of the economy. The '82 increase amounted to 0.8% of GDP (average for the first two years) while Clinton's was 0.5%.

[Guest]

ibfactcheck.orgisaleftwingsocialistsite

[integra_gsr98]

factcheck.org is a left wing nutjob site.

/thread.

reagan > *

[Guest]

Ok....now find me something that contradicts it.

[Guest]

I'll start w/ the department of treasury "REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS" that was last revised in 2006. http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf

[thrash]

It's no good to paste content from links if you don't understand what they're saying.

These are talking about revenue due to and/or collected by the government. They aren't talking about tax rates. They aren't talking about average impact to individuals. It's looking at the tax issue from the government side of things instead of the population side of things.

What was observed during the Reagan administration was that cutting tax rates increased federal revenues. People had fewer reasons to try and dodge taxes, and the engine of the economy was pumping harder and faster as a result.

High taxes == low revenues and low productivity. If Obama weren't blinded by Marxist ideology he'd understand this.

[DaveH]

tjamz;244430 wrote:
What do you think his first act of socialism will be?

/discuss

He's going to send money to people who don't pay any taxes to begin with. He has to if he holds up his idea to give 95% of americans a tax cut, because more than 5% of americans pay no taxes.

[Guest]

thrash;244520 wrote:
It's no good to paste content from links if you don't understand what they're saying.

These are talking about revenue due to and/or collected by the government. They aren't talking about tax rates. They aren't talking about average impact to individuals. It's looking at the tax issue from the government side of things instead of the population side of things.

What was observed during the Reagan administration was that cutting tax rates increased federal revenues. People had fewer reasons to try and dodge taxes, and the engine of the economy was pumping harder and faster as a result.

High taxes == low revenues and low productivity. If Obama weren't blinded by Marxist ideology he'd understand this.

Dangit thrash, you make this no fun to toy with the rest of the conservatives on here....and yes, I know what I'm looking at, I just like the debate side of it. I could just as easily flip this whole thing around and argue the conservative side of politics as well (which is much closer to many of my core beliefs)

Now, for the sake of argument, we had the biggest tax break in history (Reagan) and the biggest tax increase in history (Clinton) and the results weren't that much different from each other in revenues collected. Then we had Bush's tax cuts which didn't do anything at all to increase tax revenue...so is it possible that maybe the "happy medium" is somewhere in between what Reagan and Clinton put together?

Now, some will ask "Why does Chuck throw this out there if he allegedly knows it's not true?" Which is a fair statement. The reason I throw it out is because I'd love to see the younger members on this site step up and give me their reasoning on why they want to vote one way or another.

[Guest]

DaveH;244522 wrote:
He's going to send money to people who don't pay any taxes to begin with. He has to if he holds up his idea to give 95% of americans a tax cut, because more than 5% of americans pay no taxes.

This has been going on for years.... Earned Income Tax credits, Child tax credits, etc... I'm not saying it is right/wrong, just that it is not anything new that he will introduce.

Besides, he can't even get rid of Bush's tax cuts until 2010 at the earliest....so it won't be the first thing he does.

[StangerBanger96]

But when Bush's tax cuts expire in 2010, tax rates on ALL AMERICAN'S will go up...

[BlueSRT0483]

StangerBanger96;244533 wrote:
But when Bush's tax cuts expire in 2010, tax rates on ALL AMERICAN'S will go up...

Lets hope the economy is somewhat stable by than.

[Guest]

StangerBanger96;244533 wrote:
But when Bush's tax cuts expire in 2010, tax rates on ALL AMERICAN'S will go up...

Out of context for sure...but the tax cuts for the lower 95% stay in place under obama's plan. He's stated that is his intent repeatedly and only those about $250,000 go up. Those from 200k to 250k stay the same. Those below that point get tax breaks.

[RidinRails]

if obama wins....biden will soon later become president.

nuff said.

[SPANISH-RICE]

RidinRails;244538 wrote:
if obama wins....biden will soon later become president.

nuff said.

i hate to agree but we have to many rednecks in this country to disagree

[GarageAlchemist]

One of the reasons that im not going to vote for Obama is because yea, he's black. Because he is black, and was raised in a black family, i don't believe that he understands MY values, and my views, and where I am coming from. I do not think that he will do a good job of representing ME in the government, and in the world.

[Guest]

Uhh...he was raised by a white family there heath. Raised by his white grandmother and white mother.

But you are right...he is 1/2 black.

[JN210]

why should everyone care that he is black?....that is a bullshit reason to not vote for him, discrimination is retarded, childish, and just an all around stupid reason to not vote for him. Obama is probably the last chance at this country pulling itself back together....McCain however, he's just Bush with white hair.

[Parker]

JN210;244549 wrote:
why should everyone care that he is black?....that is a bullshit reason to not vote for him, discrimination is retarded, childish, and just an all around stupid reason to not vote for him. Obama is probably the last chance at this country pulling itself back together....McCain however, he's just Bush with white hair.
i hate you because you're white..... whitey...