McCain Policy: The Economy

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by nh_ee

 

All Mr. Buffet has to do is to make the decision to not claim any expenses and pay his fair share of taxes. Simple as that.

Oh. I see. The current tax system doesn't favor the wealthy...we just need to encourage the wealthy to VOLOUNTARILY GIVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY that they don't have to? Yah, let me know how that works out! Oh that's right..we already know...they don't pay taxes unless they have to.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by maybereal11]

maybereal11, come on. We all know the rich always find the loopholes. Buffet said people like him should pay more. Nobody says that he has to report every expense. He doesn't pay more cause he doesn't want to.

they don't pay taxes when they have to either. They move their money around. Why don't you tell me how Obama backer George Soros avoid taxes?

Originally posted by jam321
maybereal11, come on. We all know the rich always find the loopholes. Buffet said people like him should pay more. Nobody says that he has to report every expense. He doesn't pay more cause he doesn't want to.

they don't pay taxes when they have to either. They move their money around. Why don't you tell me how Obama backer George Soros avoid taxes?

I am not sure how the question of whether or not an Obama supporter utilizes Tax Loopholes reflects on Obama's position, or more to the point what it has to do with McCain's economic policy.

Are you saying Obama has a wealthy supporter who might utilize Tax Loopholes? So? McCain doesn't? Are we to inspect every wealthy contributor to either campaign to determine if they utilize tax loopholes and then somehow try to make it stick to the given candidate?....I think you are reaching here Jamie and moving the debate FAR OFF TOPIC.

reply to post by maybereal11

Are you saying Obama has a wealthy supporter who might utilize Tax Loopholes?

Did I say that? If I want to say something I say it. What I said about Buffet is true. He complains that he doesn't pay enough taxes yet deducts every expense he can find. If he truly thinks he should contribute more he should do one of two things. 1) don't deduct expenses. Nobody says you have to or 2) tell Congress how to close every loophole to ensure he pays his fair share.

you say

The current tax system doesn't favor the wealthy.

I never said that.

we just need to encourage the wealthy to VOLOUNTARILY GIVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY that they don't have to?

nor did I say this

All I was referring to was warren buffet .

My reference about Soros is that he does the same thing as any other rich person, regardless of party.

Take a look at the way he hides his assets. Both candidates make rich people an issue but yet are surrounded by the same rich people who are contributing to their campaign.

reply to post by jam321

Take a look at the way he hides his assets. Both candidates make rich people an issue but yet are surrounded by the same rich people who are contributing to their campaign.

To be fair....rich people tend to flock to the people who make policy, as well as getting far better access to them then we ever would.

The current administration....and a potential McCain Administration favor deregulation for their rich croonies. McCain WAS adamantly FOR deregulation, which in itself has allowed a few to make millions while at the same time causing great harm to our economy by having no oversight. Now he sees it differently. This is why regulation is necessary and therefore Obama the better candidate on economic issues...he knew well before this crisis what happens when the rich dictate the rules to the game.

reply to post by Grafilthy


OK. First I think we can agree that both party cater to rich people including both candidates. Been like that for a long long time.

Let's try something different and see if we can analyze this.

Is deregulation really a bad thing?

The reduction or elimination of government power in a particular industry, usually enacted to create more competition within the industry (got it from online dictionary) Now I don't think that government is really going eliminate government power. So that means that somebody is overseeing the deregulation and other agencies are also responsible for ensuring the companies are adhering to US laws and statues.

Could it be that the real problem is lack of government oversight rather than deregulation?

he knew well before this crisis what happens when the rich dictate the rules to the game.

Just a point. I don't really know who you favor but I think your a fair person either way. This statement tends to give Obama too much credit. Please be impartial when you answer.

If Obama knew well before this crisis what happens when the rich dictate the rules to the game, then why didn't he try to get some legislation passed to avoid this crisis?

In addition, Why does he allow rich people to contribute to his campaign if he knows how they like to dictate the game?

Rich people will always find a way to beat the system no matter how much you regulate or deregulate. The only hope is strong oversight to see and correct problems before they get out of hand.

reply to post by jam321

I think all of us here today would acknowledge that we've lost that sense of shared prosperity.

This loss has not happened by accident. It's because of decisions made in boardrooms, on trading floors and in Washington. Under Republican and Democratic Administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices. We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady, sustainable growth; a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both.
Nor is this trend new. The concentrations of economic power – and the failures of our political system to protect the American economy from its worst excesses – have been a staple of our past, most famously in the 1920s, when with success we ended up plunging the country into the Great Depression. That is when government stepped in to create a series of regulatory structures – from the FDIC to the Glass-Steagall Act – to serve as a corrective to protect the American people and American business.

The policies of the Bush Administration threw the economy further out of balance. Tax cuts without end for the wealthiest Americans. A trillion dollar war in Iraq that didn't need to be fought, paid for with deficit spending and borrowing from foreign creditors like China. A complete disdain for pay-as-you-go budgeting – coupled with a generally scornful attitude towards oversight and enforcement – allowed far too many to put short-term gain ahead of long term consequences. The American economy was bound to suffer a painful correction, and policymakers found themselves with fewer resources to deal with the consequences.

Today, those consequences are clear. I see them in every corner of our great country, as families face foreclosure and rising costs. I seem them in towns across America, where a credit crisis threatens the ability of students to get loans, and states can't finance infrastructure projects. I see them here in Manhattan, where one of our biggest investment banks had to be bailed out, and the Fed opened its discount window to a host of new institutions with unprecedented implications we have yet to appreciate. When all is said and done, losses will be in the many hundreds of billions. What was bad for Main Street was bad for Wall Street. Pain trickled up.

Sorry for the huge quote......but I thought it was relevant. This is from a speech back in March on exactly this. I didn't mean Obama is Nostradamus or anything like that.....but I am fairly sure he, as well as many others saw the current situation coming to a head far before a single day 500 point drop.
I made part of the quote bold for you to show that he is not just blaming one side or the other....but offering solutions. I think his economic policies would be an asset.

edit to add source...source

[edit on 18-9-2008 by Grafilthy]

Originally posted by jam321
Both candidates make rich people an issue but yet are surrounded by the same rich people who are contributing to their campaign.

There is nothing wrong with being rich and I don't think either candidate has made "rich people an issue".

Nothing wrong with being rich...we should all be so lucky.

The issue is to whom the bulk of the tax burden is carried by.
At present the people who make the least are carrying greatest part of the tax burden while the wealthiest most often employ teams of tax attorneys to find tax loop holes.

John McCain wants to give the wealthy larger tax breaks.
In contrast Obama want's to give the lower and middle class larger tax breaks. This has been established ad naseum and independently verified by dozens of independent tax analysts and organizations.

McCain and the GOP will claim "trickle down" if you give the wealthy more money...it will trickle down to the rest of us. I think of "blood from a stone" when I hear rhetoric about trickle down theory. Give the wealthy more money and....the wealthy will have more money. We are still recovering from the last time trickle down theorey was tested during the Reagan administration. It contributed to us going from the worlds largest creditor nation to the worlds largest debtor nation. Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency. see Wikipedia/reaganomics.

"Trickle-down economics" and "trickle-down theory," is the economic-political argument that the increases in the wealth of the rich are good for the poor because some of such additional wealth will eventually trickle down to the middle class and to the poor.[1]

From Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org...

The ideas derided as "trickle-down economics" are often seen as a major rhetorical variant of "what's good for business and the rich is good for the country." In this form they have been ridiculed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt as "toryism."[citation needed] The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory." He wrote, "Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."[15] Galbraith claimed that the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896.

maybereal11, you are saying some good things and maybe McCain will help the rich and Obama may make the rich pay. But the moral of the story is no matter which way we go the rich will still win. I guess you are debating candidates and I am debating the rich issue. If Obama wins the rich will find a way to hide, transfer, or under inflate their money. They have the resources to get around this. I do believe the wealthy should pay their fair share but under our current tax system it is hard to do. Congress can't fill every loophole without creating new ones. Congress is going have to face this fact and do something about it sooner or later.

reply to post by Grafilthy


The quote is mighty impressive. States many of the things we both have said and could also be broken down even further. I appreciate it.

However, I disagree with Obama policy. McCain's also. Because both economic plans will do nothing to curb spending and will only further increase our debt. Sooner or later we will have to make that sacrifice were we are basically living on beans in order to regain our economic power. The United States is living beyond its means. Like I said America first...nothing against either candidate.

reply to post by Grafilthy


Go back and read my post, I explain how McCains positoins will help the country. McCains positions are in fact quite different than GW's positions and actions. I would like to see some actual proof the McCain's policies will parot GW's policies, the lame hype about voting with GW 95% of the time is nothing but a misleading figure. My understanding is that Obama voted with GW 90% of the time.

There is also that factor of the democratic controlled congress. McCain won't be able to actually write legislation, so they two hopefully will balance things out, and get something done.

While the democrats always talk about raising taxed on the rich, they always leave in the loopholes that enable the rich to keep on avoiding paying taxes. This lets the demos claim that raised taxes on the rich, when in fact they did not.

If anyone gets a bigger tax break, I think it should be small businesses. Also, small businesses who fail should also be given a bigger break on their losses. It takes courage to start a small business, they shouldn't be punished with taxes when they fail.

McCains issue on eliminating earmarks sounds like a much better plan.

McCain's position on illegal immigrants also seems like a much better plan.

McCain's willingness to start embracing some level of regulating business is a big step in the right direction. People are allowed to learn from their mistakes, and it seems that McCain is still capable of doing just that.

Here is a recent article that I just found that I though would relate to this thread.

news.yahoo.com...

McCain also proposed creating a trust to review mortgage and financial institutions, identify weaker ones and strengthen them before insolvency. "Today we need a plan that doesn't wait until the system fails," the senator said. "For troubled institutions, this will provide an orderly process through which to identify bad loans and eventually sell them."

Now that is coming up with good ideas on how to handle our current crisis. I didn't read anything about Obama's suggestions beyond his standard party mantra that McCain is GW. I guess this is what the comedian Lewis Black means when he says the the democratic party is the party of no ideas.

What might have happened in the current financial crisis if Mr. McCain and his party had won the battle to privatize Social Security?

reply to post by poet1b

Now that is coming up with good ideas on how to handle our current crisis. I didn't read anything about Obama's suggestions beyond his standard party mantra that McCain is GW. I guess this is what the comedian Lewis Black means when he says the the democratic party is the party of no ideas.

His "idea" is coming up with another "9/11 Commission".....and we all know how useful that was.
The truth is, the across the board deregulation with little to no oversight is what causes bubbles and bursts like this. Predatory lender pays lobbyist, lobbyist pays politician, policy favors corporations.......and WE are the ones that lose.

Originally posted by poet1b
Here is a recent article that I just found that I though would relate to this thread.

news.yahoo.com...

McCain also proposed creating a trust to review mortgage and financial institutions, identify weaker ones and strengthen them before insolvency. "Today we need a plan that doesn't wait until the system fails," the senator said. "For troubled institutions, this will provide an orderly process through which to identify bad loans and eventually sell them."

Now that is coming up with good ideas on how to handle our current crisis. I didn't read anything about Obama's suggestions beyond his standard party mantra that McCain is GW. I guess this is what the comedian Lewis Black means when he says the the democratic party is the party of no ideas.

"I didn't read anything about Obama's suggestions "
Just because you didn't read it doesn't mean it isn't out there. Google Obama solving the financial crisis....he has outlined his plan in detail.

www.npr.org...

...about our economy and my plan to solve this crisis


On McCain .."Now that is coming up with good ideas "
A few questions since you seems to think this is "comming up with good ideas" and to me it seems like empty rhetoric..

What does mcCain mean by creating a "trust"?

I fear it is a code word for letting the hens run the hen-house. He didn't say "commitee" which would imply government, but rather "trust" which implies private sector...like when Dick Cheney met 40 or so times with and had the Oil Comapny CEOs determine our nations energy policy and refused to allow any government oversight of the planning.

"identify weaker ones and strengthen them before insolvency"
Okay...How? Identify them via government oversight and regulation? Which he was sternly against a week ago? and then how would he strengthen them? Further government money? I'd like to see us slow down a little since we have spent what? 300 Billion this summer on trying to rescue poorly run financial instituions?

""Today we need a plan that doesn't wait until the system fails," the senator said"

Okay captain obvious...that plan is what?

"I guess this is what the comedian Lewis Black means when he says the the democratic party is the party of no ideas."

ACTUALLY WHAT LEWIS BLACK SAYS..."“Republicans have nothing but bad ideas and Democrats have no ideas.” Lewis Black"

I won't get personal, but your post seemed to lack substance and accuracy and was clearly slanted complete with the now standard out of context qoutes.



[edit on 19-9-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 19-9-2008 by maybereal11]

reply to post by maybereal11

"Sen. Obama is not going to be second-guessing the Federal Reserve at a time like this," Jason Furman, a senior economic adviser to the Illinois Democrat, told Renee Montagne.

"Our economic problems are very serious. Eight years of shredding regulations that protect consumers, lax oversight of banks, being behind the curve in dealing with this have put us in this position," Furman said.

Great link maybereal11...
This is exactly what I keep saying. Looks like great minds think alike.
I don't know how someone could support the other guy who by his own mouth says he knows little about the economy.
McCain was for deregulation....before he was against it.

reply to post by Grafilthy


Doesn't sound anything like a 9-11 commission. McCain has never been a part of the GW neocon crowd, and no matter how hard you try to pretend this is the way things are, it is not.

There are plenty of government trusts, and it is a good idea.

Also, the idea of government working with business is third way economics, ala, Bill Clinton. McCain is far more like Clinton than Obama will ever be. Obama represents elitist politics of people like Kennedy.

reply to post by maybereal11


Umm, where in your post do you lay out Obama's plan to save the economy? Sounds more like the typical DNC no plan, just rhetoric nonsense to me. Maybe you could post a quote of what you consider to be the intelligent portions of his plans.

Demos are the party of no ideas, Repubs are the party of bad ideas, and McCain is the maverick in the middle like Bill Clinton was with completely different ideas.

You want to pretend that McCain equals GW, which is about as true as Obama equals Carter.

The more I read about McCain, the more I think he is the closest thing we have to Bill Clinton. By the way, Bill Clinton did show his respects to Reagan, which I never understood, BUT, Reagan's maverick ideas may have been closer to Bill Clinton than they ever were to the Bush family.

Maybe McCain is closer to Reagan and Clinton than we are willing to recognize.