Political/Off-Topic sticky chat thread (Philadelphia, Scranton: crime rate, exemption, babysitting)

[wanneroo]

Originally Posted by The Commish

Oh, look, wanneroo's back.

So, any idea of what Obama's tax plan actually looks like, or are we just relying on stereotypes again?

Yes the brookings institute has done an analysis among others. Have a look if you would like to be an informed voter.

[The Commish]

Originally Posted by wanneroo

Yes the brookings institute has done an analysis among others. Have a look if you would like to be an informed voter.

Indeed.

Obama raises taxes only on the top 1%.

And he provides bigger tax cuts than McCain for workers earning under $111k, who are more than 60% of all workers.

[wanneroo]

Originally Posted by The Commish

Indeed.

Obama raises taxes only on the top 1%.

And he provides bigger tax cuts than McCain for workers earning under $111k, who are more than 60% of all workers.

Uh there are no tax cuts Obama is proposing other than "credits". He is going to rescind the bush tax cuts which will raise taxes for all, rather than make them permanent. Those that actually pay taxes anyways. Plus he proposes increases in capital gains taxes which will punish all.

Tax Cuts, Real and Imaginary

Barack Obama claims to be proposing income tax cuts for low and moderate income and middle class workers, but Reagan Republicans have already eliminated most of their income tax liability. What
Obama is calling tax cuts for the middle class is really a slew of refundable federal income tax credits that would primarily go to those who are paying little or no federal income taxes now. Such credits would primarily not reduce tax liability, but instead be checks from the federal government for child care, education, housing, retirement, health care, even outright giveaways. These are not tax cuts. They are new federal spending programs hidden in the tax code.
When Obama says that he will cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, he is talking about his proposal for a $500 refundable income tax credit for all but the top 5 percent of income earners. For the bottom 40 percent of income earners, this will be just another check from the federal government rather than a reduction in tax liability. It is another sharp increase in government spending rather than any sort of tax cut. An arbitrary cash grant does not, moreover, do anything to improve the economy or incentivize productive business. That only comes from cutting tax rates. What Obama is proposing here is really quite similar to George McGovern's 1972 plan to send everyone a $1,000 check, which voters rightly saw as a crass vote-buying scheme rather than serious policy.

[wanneroo]

Obama's change could cost big bucks | Philadelphia Inquirer | 09/14/2008

So what does Obama propose? To be sure, he does have a few tax cuts aimed at middle- and low-income Americans sprinkled through his plan. His "Making Work Pay" credit would offset payroll taxes on the first $8,100 of earnings, generating savings of up to $500 per person or $1,000 per family. His campaign says that will eliminate income taxes for 10 million low-income Americans.
But we already have the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income wage earners. The IRS estimates that nearly one-third of EITC payments - more than $10 billion annually - now are wasted in overpayments. Is it really wise to create an entire and complicated new credit that would be subject to the same abuses?
Obama's small tax cuts would have a negligible effect on our economy because of their indirect and minimal effect on economically productive behavior. His tax increases, however, are something else again and seem likely to have a significant, negative effect on our nation's economic growth.
The centerpiece of Obama's plan is to end the Bush tax cuts and allow the top two tax rates to return to 36 percent and 39.6 percent. He would also phase out personal exemptions and deductions for those with income in excess of $250,000.
Again, with an eye toward punishing those who have achieved economic success, Obama plans to end the Social Security payroll-tax cap for those making more than $250,000. The cap is currently set at a more reasonable $102,000.
Under Obama's plan, these individuals will face a tax rate of 15.65 percent from payroll taxes and the top income-tax rate of 39.6 percent for a combined top rate of more than 56 percent on each additional dollar earned.
In a single stroke, Obama's massive payroll-tax increase abandons any pretext of Social Security's being "social insurance," as opposed to just another welfare program. It would massively expand government with almost no positive effect on Social Security's solvency.

As if those proposals were not enough to weigh the U.S. economy down, Obama plans to nearly double the top dividends and capital-gains rate from the current 15 percent rate to as high as 28 percent. Indeed, while most tax cuts may result in slight revenue declines even as they spur economic growth, Bush's dividend and capital gains tax cuts actually have increased federal revenue. Obama would be wise to reconsider these particularly destructive tax increases.
On the other hand, Obama pledges to follow President Bush in rapidly increasing the size and scope of the federal government. Bush has allowed the federal budget to grow from 18.4 percent to 20 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. Former President Bill Clinton, on the other hand, oversaw a reduction of federal spending from 22.1 percent to 18.7 percent of GDP.

[go phillies]

I think I'm voting "none of the above" for president. The only candidate for any office in this election I actually like is Lou Barletta.

[mbs7]

I don't know if anyone else has already done so, but I would like to suggest that those interested in checking to see if either of the candidates is lying about a particular issue might wish to consult the following link:

FactCheck.org

[blip]

Ok, this seems to be getting a bit out of hand with this $700B buyout of bad mortgage-reelated assets. (And banning short-selling on ~800 financial institutions is far from reassuring.)

I agree with the principle of doing something to stem the tide, but after reading a lot about this, I still have two big open questions that aren't really being asked.

First, how is the government going to value these assets in making its offers? If no one in the private sector is willing to pay a dime on the dollar of their supposed pre-meltdown value, I hope the government will pay pennies or less. But without this spelled out, it feels like they're throwing money at the problem.

Second, isn't there a conflict of interest in approving $700B to Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, to bailout his colleagues?

And, despite being very pro-Democrats, the suggestion of Congress attaching another tax-rebate sure smells of pandering. Bones thrown at us to distract us from the steaks being thrown to Wall St. Worry about these bigger questions and understanding the financial crisis before trying to appease us, I say..

[wanneroo]

Originally Posted by blip

Ok, this seems to be getting a bit out of hand with this $700B buyout of bad mortgage-reelated assets. (And banning short-selling on ~800 financial institutions is far from reassuring.)

I agree with the principle of doing something to stem the tide, but after reading a lot about this, I still have two big open questions that aren't really being asked.

First, how is the government going to value these assets in making its offers? If no one in the private sector is willing to pay a dime on the dollar of their supposed pre-meltdown value, I hope the government will pay pennies or less. But without this spelled out, it feels like they're throwing money at the problem.

Second, isn't there a conflict of interest in approving $700B to Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, to bailout his colleagues?

And, despite being very pro-Democrats, the suggestion of Congress attaching another tax-rebate sure smells of pandering. Bones thrown at us to distract us from the steaks being thrown to Wall St. Worry about these bigger questions and understanding the financial crisis before trying to appease us, I say..

I have mixed feelings about this after doing a lot of research on the Great Depression. It's different this time, shaky loans on houses instead of shaky loans on common stock, but the deal is the same. Like 1929, much of the economy is sound, but what is happening now is what happened then with cessation of money moving though the market. The average person starts to panic and pulls all their funds out of everything for safety, but when enough people do that the whole system collapses. I think what the government is trying to do is keep money moving in the system and keep people confident so they don't do bank runs and pull out their money out of stocks and bonds, etc.

Ultimately though I have a concern about throwing good money after bad and sticking the taxpayer with responsibilities when those responsible walk away scot free.

I found this interesting reading regarding the chapters on the bull market, crash and aftermath in the late 1920's:

Only Yesterday--F.L. Allen

The eerie thing is that those chapters could almost be describing today with a change of a few details and dates. It talks of doormen, chauffeurs, and other service people on wall street invested in common stocks or loans to purchase such when the other day I just read a reuters or ap article about the same type of people with all their savings sunk in "investment properties". It's a 80 year difference, but how much has not changed?

Of interest also is Obama's "patriotic tax plan" to soak successful people with even more taxes, income, capital gains and corporate, etc. That's the last thing you need to do right now! The Great Depression would have been a simple recession, but excessive raises in tariffs and taxes killed the economy.

The following is one of the best articles I've ever read about the depression with a lot of lessons that can be applied to today:

http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf

[ScranBarre]

Wow, just wow. I just reread the earlier half of this thread, and I must say that it was quite refreshing to see how we've all grown and matured over the past year or so to the point where we can now have a lucid debate that is generally devoid of callous remarks and ill-will towards your opponent. Some of the replies in the first half of this thread were just downright heinous---apparently we males can become just as catty as females when our domain is being threatened.

With that being said I'd like to shift this topic back towards Scranton politics to see how (or if) anyone who participated in the earlier part of this thread (go phillies, myself, NYRangers2008, weluvpa, CHS89, casper, etc.) have had a change of heart about any particular city-related topics.

1.) What is your opinion on the recent announcement that former junior city councilman Doug Miller is making a bid for city council in 2009?

2.) Who do you believe will run for mayor against incumbent Mayor Doherty in 2009? For that matter do you think Mayor Doherty will even seek re-election?

3.) How long will it be before another Ray Lyman video makes its way to YouTube?

4.) Who wants to take bets on the first Scranton establishment cited for violating the new state law prohibiting smoking in such establishments? Whistle's? Chick's Diner?

5.) Who is most entertaining to watch on Channel 61? Phyllis, Ray Lyman, Les Spindler, Fay Franus, or Sam Patilla?

6.) What do you hope will be the goals of the (potential) new mayor of Scranton?

7.) Do you believe a new stadium will be built in Downtown Scranton?

8.) Will Scranton's mid-2008 violent crime explosion continue into the foreseeable future?

9.) Is there an "Irish/Catholic Conspiracy" in Scranton?

10.) Will ECTV ever get off the ground?

[blip]

Originally Posted by wanneroo

Of interest also is Obama's "patriotic tax plan" to soak successful people

Wanneroo, by your misleading use of quotes (quoting the Republican spin, not the actual words of Biden), it seems you're stuck in the Republican echo chamber.

I agree with you that it is a patriotic tax plan, though. The current scheme is regressive in many ways-- millionaires pay lower tax rates--when you consider all sources of income--than the middle class does.