Greenspan: We can't afford McCain's tax cuts

I know the man isnt in charge of the economy any more. But his opinion still counts for something. I have been thinking all along that we cant afford these kind of tax cuts wit hall the spending we have done and will likely continue to do. I think its time to dissect both politicians tax plans and the pros and cons of both.

mccain's tax cuts

reply to post by bknapple32


Alan Greenspan...hmmm...

Sounds familiar...

Oh yes! Wasn't he the man in charge of the US economy from 1987 until 2006? That would mean that the giant tsunami of excrement about to break over all of us was born, raised, and matured under none other than his watch.

These aren't the days when he's echoing Ayn Randian Objectivist philosophy. As far as I'm concerned, Alan Greenspan's opinion means about as much to me as something I scrape off of my shoes.

yep, you know more than him. you're right. what was i thinking.

reply to post by bknapple32


Well he certainly has mucked it up much worse than I have, when he had the opportunity to make it greater than it has ever been with the technological advances that occurred within this time. You're the one placing emphasis on the importance of his opinion when the economic crisis can effectively be placed at his feet. Why is that?

Since he did such a bad job, why would you want more of his bad advice?

Finally someone with some common sence and some know how speeks out against the same ole' same ole' business as usual Bush policies that McCain is going to continue.

Someone said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and again and expecting positive results when the results continue to be anything but that. Here we see McCain supporting the same old tired and worn out policies that have us in an economic mess and with a massive deficit unlike anyother ever in the history of the United States. And yet, millions will vote for more of the same when we have an alternative, and a populist running on real "change".

This is the plan. Obama will cut it for the bottom 90%. He will cut it more then McCain will. But that's apparently a bad thing. The Bottom 90% need to be taxed so the top 10% can get more tax money. After all they get more tax money through corporate welfare from the government then every little person on welfare has in the entire history of welfare. But that poor black man getting 300dollars a month is the problem not the old white billionaire getting 20billion dollars.

unfortunately, I think they are all right...
instead of tax cuts, there should be tax increases, there's been way too much government spending of money they just don't have.
there also needs to be a cut in that government spending.
unfortunately, MaCain's right, you raise the taxes on the business sector and it's gonna hurt them. and Obama's right, you raise the taxes on the middle and the lower class, you're gonna kill them. we are in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation.

they are spending billions upon billions bailing out their buddies in the financial sector. and well, frannie and freddie stock are still being exchanged, albiet, I don't think either one is worth more than a dollar a share at the moment, which probably means that the billions we are throwing at them are probably worth more than the entire stock value of the company. we, the taxpayers should now hold the controlling interest in these two companies, we should be made stockholders of this company, and we should reap the profits when these two companies get back on their feet and start producing a profit. the gov't should be given enough shares in this company to have a controlling interest in it. then when the company is back on it's feet, well, they should be able to sell those shares on the open market, the profit going to help settle the debt that bailing these two companies out to begin with. and we should be doing this with every company that we bail out!
if it's the american taxpayer that is taking the risk, then the taxpayers should also reap some of the harvest in the good times also!

reply to post by bknapple32


Existing Thread, but you still get a flag and star.

Greenspan

[edit on 14-9-2008 by iamcamouflage]

It's a sad reality, but Bush's tax cuts and out-of-control spending has us in horrible debt and the administration doesn't seem to care, as long as their cronies are taken care of. A McCain administration would seem to continue these illogical "economics".

I agree with Greenspan that our country cannot afford what McCain has in store for us. I question his economic experience and I'm not content to just "see what happens" this time.

I posted in the Bully Pulpit about the difference in the 2 candidates' tax plans.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyone that knows something about the economy realizes that the in order to steer this country's economy,budget and national debt in the right direction corporate tax cuts need to be eliminated and some other taxes need to be raised.

The question is, do the people care?

I remember when the GOP where the champion is fiscal responsibility and they coined the phrase: Is that what are we going to leave to our children and grandchildren? A decade or two ago people would actually vote against those who spend taxpayer money on needless things. Now with earmarks people actually vote for those politicians that can "bring home the bacon" regardless of what it does the the budget or national debt.

People dont care anymore what we leave to our children our grandchildren, now the mood is :"Hey! let them figure it out for themselves!"

We is happening right now, is that we have leadership in place that are acting like 14 year old teenagers that just got a credit card with no limit, you now how thats story is going to end.

I'm afraid that our country is going to hahve the same fate.





[edit on 14-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 14-9-2008 by Bunch]

Originally posted by Krieger

This is the plan. Obama will cut it for the bottom 90%. He will cut it more then McCain will. But that's apparently a bad thing. The Bottom 90% need to be taxed so the top 10% can get more tax money. After all they get more tax money through corporate welfare from the government then every little person on welfare has in the entire history of welfare. But that poor black man getting 300dollars a month is the problem not the old white billionaire getting 20billion dollars.

With your permission kreiger, Im posting that tax comparison everywhere I post when this debate comes up. OBAMA ACTUALLY HELPS OUT THE MIDDLE CLASS and takes care of spending by raising it on the upper 10%. I highly doubt most Mccain supporters are in the upper 10% bracket. Why would the yvote against themselves?

You're right, bknapple32. I actually heard that most people think Obama is going to raise their taxes! LOL I didn't realize so many people made over $250K! Must be nice.

reply to post by bknapple32


So the argument here is, "Don't tax ME, tax THEM!" I've yet to hear from the Neocon Monster McBama camp(s), "CUT SPENDING!"

Since, when does any sort of tax be it taxing the richest or the poorest create wealth?


[edit on 14-9-2008 by Gateway]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



Lol I know.There is such a stigma against dems for raising taxes. Well thats because the politicians who complain about it arent lying. Dems do raise taxes on the rich. Thus affecting their political counterparts. But the VOTERS listen to the counterpart because he has a R next to him, and they take his word for it. Facts are in balck and white folks. Unless you are in the 10% your taxes wont be raised. PERIOD

And if you are in the top 10% I dont feel bad for ya.

reply to post by Gateway


I suppose your answer would be to write in Ron Paul, a man who voted against the amber alert as pres. Whats he going to do not tax a soul? Puh Lease.

reply to post by bknapple32


I would rather they get rid of the Federal Income tax, altogether like Dr.Paul proposes. Rather than installing or perpetuating some taxing scheme that has roots in envy, the likes of; "Lets tax the rich, because they are rich!"

Since that's not going to happen, why is the Mcbama not proposing to cut spending. Instead of looking at the accelerated growth of government and cursing it, you libs and conservatives want to keep feeding the beast and just transfer the burden of taxes on to someone else, without actually taking the necessary steps to reduce the problem that has led us to where we are i.e. BIG GOVERNMENT. (both welfare and warfare)

The argument Greenspan makes above, is that the tax cuts Mcain makes would ruin the country since, the difference would then be covered by monetizing the debt. In other words, Greenspan is by no means arguing to RAISE OR TRANSFER the tax burden, all he is saying is to cut THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT, and thereby not have to worry about TAXING someone to pay for it.


None of which is being proposed by McSame, or Yomama, hence the word McBama.


[edit on 14-9-2008 by Gateway]

reply to post by Gateway


I hear many Paul supporters talk about getting rid of income taxes and many of the programs that the govt has. I'm not opposed to shrinking the size of govt but the question that I have is: How do we pay for the exisiting and future social infrastructure? How do we pay for police, fire, schools, etc? Would we have any taxes? property, sales, etc?

I agree that there is a lot of waste in govt and cutting spending is the best first step we can make to put a dent in the deficit. Do you feel like every social program and service needs to be axed? Should these be state issues? What do we do when a state fails? Are you for a completely capitalist society? Should private industry be regulated in any way?

Please dont interpret my questions as attacking. I just have a lot of questions when it comes to many of the platforms that paul runs on.

Thanks in advance

reply to post by Gateway

I would rather they get rid of the Federal Income tax, altogether like Dr.Paul proposes. Rather than installing or perpetuating some taxing scheme that has roots in envy, the likes of; "Lets tax the rich, because they are rich!"

The world isn't like a doll house. It's a bit more complicated than what appears on the surface. Tax percentages are higher on the larger income amounts not because of "envy"...I got a good chuckle out of this...this sentiment is like "oh the poor poor rich, they pay too much taxes" ha ha, pity moan whine!!!! Everyone else is just jealous. Hey is that a red herring over there?

Think about it. The wealthy benefit the most by the regulatory agencies that make their particular type of specialty in the markets possible by doing things like barriers to entry or exit, leveling playing fields or propping various positions up on the field. It helps facilitate necessary infrastructure for the business to succeed and provides the defense to protect their interests (think of how United Fruit for example has benefited by the United States toppling democratic governments in particular South American countries and then replacing them with corporate and US friendly dictatorial regimes…in this way the shareholders back in New York don’t have to worry about loosing their market share in fruit production. Now your free to believe however you like, but I don’t think the poor and working class should take from the kitchen table in order to pay a high level of tax they can’t afford so that the already extreme wealthy in the financial districts can laugh some more on the way to the bank). The labor to make their industrial enterprise succeed is generally provided at low cost by the working class who squeeze out a meager living and the ones actually "producing" something while the extreme rich capitalize literally off of the sweat of other people's brows (and other various body parts) and their money grows exponentially through various investment...

I like Ron Paul on a lot of issues, and I think the Fed. Reserve private banking system needs an overhaul, but I'm not naive enough to think a flat tax is the answer. The rich already enjoy a system that works to their favor and at the expense of others...don't kid yourself.

Originally posted by iamcamouflage

I hear many Paul supporters talk about getting rid of income taxes and many of the programs that the govt has. I'm not opposed to shrinking the size of govt but the question that I have is: How do we pay for the exisiting and future social infrastructure? How do we pay for police, fire, schools, etc? Would we have any taxes? property, sales, etc?

Currently most of these things are paid for by the State, by either State Income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc. The Fed currently pays for some portion, but I think most if not all expenses can be paid for by each state, if not by taxes then by borrowing.

I agree that there is a lot of waste in govt and cutting spending is the best first step we can make to put a dent in the deficit. Do you feel like every social program and service needs to be axed?

Sure, I think so. Let's start with the one I think is getting us into trouble all around the world, the CIA for starters. How does the CIA really benefit us? All they are is a group of hired thugs that go around enforcing the wishes of the elite. When they go topple governments, or fund other regimes how does that benefit the average American? Sure it may have a positive effect for the U.S. Multinational company that is having problems with the regime abroad, for example. But how is helping them out in my or anyone else interest? The people who lobby Washington, to help them with their problems, be they with Chavez or Castro want U.S. military enforcement of their property, they want your or my blood to help them with their problems. The CIA has only help to make us here in the U.S. less secure, since they are the epitome of FOREIGN INTERVENTION, truly a Neocon's best tool.

There are other departments which also do nothing like the Department of Commerce, Department of Labor, Department of Education... and so on.

And that's just here domestically, we can then of course bring our troops home from Germany, Spain, UK. Why are they still there? Can't Germans and the English defend their own country, are they that inept?

Should these be state issues?

I believe most things are State issues. What works for NY may not necessarily not work for Nebraska, much less the entire country. What better way, for people that know what and how to run their affairs than by control being given to them to decide at the local level.

What do we do when a state fails?

This is the BIG difference between FED and State. All the fed has to do when it faces shortfalls or defecits is to print up the money supply. The states are usually more responsible and usually balance their budgets or borrow, which is fine, but at least they have the preassure like anybody else should; of getting their house in order.

The federal government lacks this incentive, because it has the FED to fund them.

Are you for a completely capitalist society?

Yes, I'm an ardent Capitalist. Unfortunately, this country has not seen capitalism since the 1850s. All we have in this country today is a bastardized version of mercantilism, or corporatism to be exact. Capitalism has nothing to do with WTO, or Nafta, Copyright laws, Trust laws or Central banking. All of these tools are used by multinational corporation to bend the rules their way, at the expense of their competitors.

Should private industry be regulated in any way?

Regulation is actually a misnomer. Regulation is used by large corporations to restrict entry. Large corporations are the ones usually going to congress to write a new law which limits that, or restricts this; they do this to benefit themselves, at the cost of their competitors.

So anytime when you hear the word "regulate" it means limit entry. And by limiting entry you eliminate competition, and hurt the consumer by restricting choices.

Please watch this video it has an Economist and Ron Paul in his younger days discussing "anti-trust" regulations. (Windows Media player)

mises.org:88...

It makes you think twice, regarding regulations.

Please dont interpret my questions as attacking. I just have a lot of questions when it comes to many of the platforms that paul runs on. Thanks in advance

No problem, I love talking about the man. He is very informed about economics, natural rights laws, state's rights, and history. Which is why I'm fascinated by him. If you have any other questions, let me know.

reply to post by skyshow


It's simple skyshow, you either believe that taking people's fruits of their labor is just or you don't.

If you do feel it is just then it is arbitrary on how you proceed on how to expropriate their fruit, depending on who is elected, am I right? You either vote Obama who says he will expropriate it from the rich to JUSTLY (whatever that means) pay his pet projects, or you vote for Mcain who says he will expropriate it from no one. What that means since he will not cut spending is that EVERYONE will pay for it by the debt being monetized.

If you feel, that government has no right to take your income especially like you have pointed out THE FEDERAL government since they are the enforcers of Multinational companies then you will agree like I do to abolish the federal income tax, and let the Multinationals fend for themselves. Right? Isn't this what you want?



[edit on 14-9-2008 by Gateway]