I saw Steve Forbes Friday night and listened to a fairly compelling argument that our current financial crisis is a series of bad decisions. President elect Obama, you should talk to him. The rest of you should find what he has been writing over the past months because his knowledge and depth were wasted on my short-term memory.
Four things that did stick with me –
1) We need a policy of a strong dollar. This is not negotiable.
2) We need to help our domestic auto industry in ways that will help their sustainability. Simple question we all need to understand is why are GM and Ford phenomenally successful outside the US? Forbes made the point that if GM and Ford would close down their US operations they would be seen as world-class companies. Wow – something to think about and it has little to do with unions, although the unions need to get their workers to work more often. Ten percent absenteeism is obscene – if the UAW deals with that they will be seen as more relevant. The work needs to be made more interesting as well, which is on the leadership of GM, Ford and Chrysler.
3) Taxes cannot be raised in a crisis. This means that spending must be cut. This is combination of stopping dumb things like unsustainable wars and bailouts that don’t address root causes. It also means efficiency in government vs the current placebos. Cut non-entitlement budgets across the board including the Pentagon and hire consultants that know how to implement instead of the mass training houses. Also buy all managers in government agencies a copy of Kotter’s latest book. Fire all who whine or block instead of seeing the opportunity. Efficiencies will be found and the work will be more interesting.
4) Health care has to be addressed with efficient system wide solutions. Piece-meal solutions will not cut it which means expansion of existing programs won’t do. Forbes’ example was that of medical tourism – why is a flight to Singapore and surgery to have a knee replacement one-fourth the cost of doing it in the US? How can these hospitals offer first class results with infection rates that are nonexistent? Lasik surgery is another example – success rates are close to 100% and costs are substantially reduced from a decade ago. Why? Understand the answer and you will be looking at what efficient reform looks like.
Forbes says it is time for Obama to turn into a pragmatic politician to make sure he is there for 8 years. He has some good thoughts, take some time to understand them and encourage your government officials to understand them as well. I personally would like to keep the smart guy in the White House.
http://search.forbes.com/search/colArchiveSearch?author=Forbes
I don’t want Steve as my President, but I would be impressed if he became a trusted advisor to Obama.
Gary
Despite the concrete fact that 95% of Americans would have their income tax cut under an Obama administration, there are still a lot of misperceptions out there about Barack's tax plan. Fortunately the campaign has created a website, http://taxcut.barackobama.com, where anyone can plug in their own income and get the truth about what kind of tax break they would get with Barack.
Recently, supporter Ed O'Neill, better known as Al Bundy from "Married with Children," was back in his hometown of Youngstown, to campaign for Barack. While there, he brought Al back to figure out what TV's favorite shoe salesman's tax cut would be under an Obama administration:
Also on taxcut.barackobama.com, you can:
From Field Organizer Graham, in Lawrence County:
A lot of times people say that they can't come in to help because they've got kids. Elijah Lutz has solved this dilemma by forming the Kids for Obama Committee. Even though he can't vote, Elijah knows that electing Senator Obama is important to his future. The Lawrence County Office's walls are filled with Kids for Obama Committee posters, our yard sign assembly line consists of members of the Committee and Eli has submitted the following statement: "My Name is Eli Lutz and I am the Chairman of the Ironton Kids for Obama Committee. For eight years, we have faced many hard situations such as high taxes, too expensive health care, and leaving kids behind in education. You see, Obama has a plan for affordable health care, tax breaks for lower class citizens, and a great funding plan for education. I started this committee thinking that kids who want to help on election day who can't vote be able to help out the campaign in their own way. By spreading the word of our future, we can help get Barack Obama made the Fourty-Fourth President of the United States of America and stop a third term with Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin. Vote Obama for President, it's for our future.Elijah L. Lutz"
A lot of times people say that they can't come in to help because they've got kids. Elijah Lutz has solved this dilemma by forming the Kids for Obama Committee. Even though he can't vote, Elijah knows that electing Senator Obama is important to his future. The Lawrence County Office's walls are filled with Kids for Obama Committee posters, our yard sign assembly line consists of members of the Committee and Eli has submitted the following statement:
"My Name is Eli Lutz and I am the Chairman of the Ironton Kids for Obama Committee. For eight years, we have faced many hard situations such as high taxes, too expensive health care, and leaving kids behind in education. You see, Obama has a plan for affordable health care, tax breaks for lower class citizens, and a great funding plan for education. I started this committee thinking that kids who want to help on election day who can't vote be able to help out the campaign in their own way. By spreading the word of our future, we can help get Barack Obama made the Fourty-Fourth President of the United States of America and stop a third term with Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin. Vote Obama for President, it's for our future.
Elijah L. Lutz"
Do you know a kid for Obama? Let us know in the comments section below!
The claims that a 39% tax rate is outrageously high -- MARXISM -- are laughable.
Was President Reagan a Marxist? His top tax rate was 50%.
Was President Nixon a Marxist? The top marginal tax rate under Nixon was 70%.
Was President Eisenhower a Marxist? The highest income bracket's tax rate under Eisenhower was 91%
Yes, that's right. 91% (ninety-one percent).
That's how they paid for (for example) the infrastructure (e.g. Eisenhower's national highway system) that the current generation of Republicans has been leaving to crumble and rot today. It costs money.
Should we tax top incomes at 91%. I don't think so.
But the idea that our economy would be crippled by a tax rate of (oh, blush) 39% on incomes greater than $250,00 or that this is Marxism, or that this is a Democratic Party level of taxation -- anyone with a sense of the economic history of the 20th century should find this a very sad joke.
For more historical data, http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
Small businesses form the backbone of the American economy, and Ohio is no exception. In the Buckeye State, small business owners comprise a crucial part of Barack's movement for change. They can do even more by uniting to spread the message of why they, as people involved in small businesses, support Barack.
Watch this video of Barack in Toledo talking about small businesses, then sign up for Ohio Small Businesses for Obama:
Click HERE to join Ohio Small Businesses for Obama today. On the sign-up page, you can:
With all the recent attention thrust upon Joe "the Plumber," from Toledo, there are a lot of misperceptions about Barack's tax and small business policies, and this movement is about people coming together to put forward the truth about Barack's plan for change.
Join Ohio Small Businesses for Obama right now.
McCain is now saying that Obama's tax policy is "Socialist". Of course, we know that's poppy cock, but the problem is it's a frame and should not be underestimated. To understand how frame's work, read UC Berkeley linguist George Lakoff's article here:
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/howtorespond.html
The idea behind describing Obama's tax policy this way, I think, is that conservatives place strong importance on discpline. If someone succeeds, they think it's because they were disciplined. Disciplined, and therefore successful people, they think, deserve to be rewarded. They think of people who are struggling to make it as lazy and undisciplined. To describe Obama's tax plan as McCain does makes it sound like a free gift to the undisciplined. We need to fight this frame by reframing it. Here are my suggestions.
I don’t see where the Republicans get off accusing Obama’s policies as socialism (connoting it in a bad sense). As near as I can tell, America does not yet achieve the goal of providing its citizens equality of opportunity. Surely, a major factor of one’s opportunity is an individual’s economic means, i.e. that they can afford food, shelter, clothing. In addition, a gov’t that spends progressive taxation’s revenues on better public primary education, increased access to healthcare, as well as improving our nations, and particularly our inner cities’ and outer rural crumbling or absent basic infrastructure is making long strides in improving our nation’s promise of equal opportunty.
We aren’t talking about creating equality of economic status, but rather a tax policy that helps guarantee equal access to the engines of personal advancement - that’s what our government should be looking to enable.
It is amazing how many people don't understand what socialism really is, but let's utilize John McCain's Spin and maybe make some sense of it. I doubt that even 1/3 of the voters have a clue of what Socialism really is an obvious that the GOP does not. Facts are, we have now and have always had, a progressive tax system. Those with the most pay more in % tax, (theoretically) since they can live by better means. Nothing wrong with charging The Banker that makes a $1 million a year at a 40% tax rate, then cutting the rate of the janitor to 20% tax rate. That is what Obama means by 'redistributing the wealth'. Unfortunate for most people, they listen to the backwards explanations of Palin too much. Right now, The Banker .. after all his Bush/McCain tax breaks and write offs, pays only about 20% or less .. While The Janitor who mops his floors at the Bank is paying 30 - 42%.
Obama is not taking anything from the Janitor .. in fact ... he wants to flip it around and let the Fat Cat pay MORE and the 'Ordinary Joe' LESS. That is NOT SOCIALISM!
FACTS ARE: The original “Redistribution of Wealth Program” Republicans devised as the Earned Income Credit .. which is actually paid to people who have children and make under the level of middle class. They not only pay less taxes than the middle class, but the money from the middle class (which is why we pay so much higher % tax, since we are the greater majority) is REDISTRIBUTED to the less fortunate .... who sometimes don't make as much or little as $2000 a year. In some instances these checks are a windfall for the primarily unemployed and lower income families. The problem is, the GOP put this burden on the Middle Class, not on the Fat Cats, like Cindi McCain or any of John’s Rich Buddies. (Yes, let’s Freeze the Tax Rates he Screams)
THE SAME THE SAME THE SAME --- ONLY THE NUMBERS CHANGE AND THE BURDEN IS SHIFTED.NOW THAT IS NOT NEAR AS GOOD OR FAIR OF A SYSTEM AS OBAMA'S PLAN ... WHO WANTS TO TAKE THE BURDEN OFF THE MIDDLE CLASS AND PLACE IT ON THE FAT CATS. BOTH PLANS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY THE SAME, JUST THE NUMBERS AND THE PEOPLE PAYING WILL CHANGE. GUESS THE ‘GOP’ ARE A BUNCH OF SOCIALIST ALSO!!!!! LOL .. SINCE IT WAS THEIR (GOP) GREAT IDEA TO START WITH.
We are just the suckers who got to pay the bill!!Now do any of you GOP folks have any questions or do I need to do your Math for you? Do you want to keep paying the SAME RATE or HIGHER, so your money can then be given as an EARNED INCOME CREDIT to those less fortunate ... or PAY LESS and still have the EARNED INCOME CREDIT, but paid for by the Fat Cats. Either way! that is SOCIALISM according to McCain/Palin. It is an invention of the Republicans and it is the monkey on your backside.
While John McCain screams 'let's freeze the tax rates' MCCAIN WANTS TO FREEZE THEM, SINCE HE IS ALREADY STICKING IT TO THE MIDDLE CLASS ANYWAY.He said "we have them right where we want them", well that was not about the Obama Camp .. it was about YOU .. he has you just at the right tax rate and his buddies (FAT CATS) are making a fortune.
I hope the Obama Campaign will read this as well, since I used it several times to explain to the undecided and they got the program afterwards. Sometimes you have to do the Math for people. What Barack Obama needs to do, is sit down and draw it out on a board, because that is what it will take for people to understand. He should say more appropriate, "We are going to shift the burden of the Tax (Wealth) Redistribution and hand it to those who can actually afford to pay."
Lately, McCain and Palin have been pushing this idea that the tax cuts are socialist and a form of welfare for those who do not pay taxes. Let's get somethings straight here...
TAX CUTS ONLY GO TO PEOPLE WHO PAY TAXES. Even those rebate checks that Bush gave out earlier this year only go to those who file. The Obama plan will only go to help those hard working Americans out there that are struggling with mortgages, high gas prices, and credit card debt. NO ONE in this country who works should have to suffer the indignity of going bankrupt, having to decide between food or heat.
What is perplexing is the fact that McCain, who supposedly puts "Country First" is not urging the same of the wealthiest in this nation. Maybe putting off the purchase of that next Ferrari is too much of a sacrifice to bear? Paying taxes is a patriotic duty, anyone who thinks otherwise needs to start looking for a new home... on another planet... every government on earth taxes its population.
SOCIALISM refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society. No one is asking for an equality in salaries here. All we're asking is that the uppermost level of society pay a measly 3% more in taxes.
Some have said that those who work hard and work well should earn more money. I couldn't agree more. But, the CEOs of the major corporations have run these companies into the ground and still continue to demand higher pay. If good CEOs are meant to lose the money that shareholders invest in the company, we might as well start replacing these idiots with trained chimpanzees.
Let's look at the problem of wealth distribution. I am summarizing from the following webpage that the more economically interested can check out in their free time. Look at the wealth distribution by type of asset. 90% of America has 74% of the debt!! If we do not help the bottom 90% soon this nation will be run into the ground. Many of the individuals in the bottom 90% of the income ladder can barely afford to pay the monthly interest charges. Is an extra 3% really that much to ask? How selfish and greedy can you be?
On one final note... I would like to challenge the "tax-cuts for growth crowd." I would like anyone opposed to the Obama plan to find evidence from any economic textbook or peer-reviewed journal article that conclusively demonstrates that lower taxes actually promote economic growth. This is the biggest fallacy that continues to be perpetuated by the Republicans and even many "financial pundits" in the media. Where's the beef??
Warning:
This blog is boring.
This blog only shares facts and does not intend to feed fears.
It does not spout sound bites and incite anger.
Yes, there is no mention of "sarah and socialism" to be found. It's just the facts. And yes, it's true, the facts with what is going on these days are just - so - well - boring. A real snoozefest actually.
Nonetheless, if you happen to be one of the two people who chose to read a blog that has truth and tax in the subject header, misery loves company, so I welcome you.
This blog is in response to all of those who are tuning into Fox news, forwarding e-mails, engaging in conversations about their hard work and all those "damn bleeding heart liberals."
This blog is in response to those tuning into Rush to shake theirs heads in anger and to call and commiserate about "all those lazy 30% of Americans getting hand-outs."
Here it goes. In response to these accusations and the lack of real information readily available, a friend of mine sought to conduct some research and to seek out the truth about the tax plans on the table.
He is a non-confrontational, fair, objective person who is a supporter of Barack Obama. He is a CPA who loves to conduct research and engage in conversations based on fact and not emotion - yes, he's a real hoot some would think (not). The fact that he took the time to research this topic and write a blog in attempt to spread the truth is comendable to say the least - and I think the very least you can do is read it and pass the information along:
http://onemanparade.blogspot.com/
The tax socialist issue has legs - use this info to outrun it.
I'm getting a little nervous about phrases like "Spread the Wealth." I'm nervous because the phrase seems to imply that hard work will be discouraged in an Obama presidency. I hope that this is not the case and I'm glad that Colin Powell addressed this topic today. With that having been said, I'd like to present a change in tax policy that could help people that need assistance while continuing to encourage working hard.
In the wake of the current financial disaster, we have a chance to make some profound changes to our economy and our tax policies. Instead of taxing income, we should be taxing luxury items and waste. I highly discourage increasing taxes on people's income, including the wealthest. Taxes on income take away our choices in life. Instead, we should be taxing those items which we have the freedom to chose. For example, we should increase taxes on luxury items in order to close our budget short falls around the country.
In addition, we should not be increasing taxes on businesses income or on capital gains. Instead, we should taxing waste. For example, we should be increasing the tax on sending garabage to waste landfills. Not only will taxing waste encourage recycling and waste-to-energy projects, but it will also provide the government money to re-invest in America.
Let me know if you think that this makes sense.
Of course, tax policy isn't the only issue here. The dismal performance of the Bush administration has many causes: deregulation and loose oversight; an energy policy in service of the oil companies, with no attention to the implications for the environment and the potential of green jobs; lack of respect for science; and an education policy that focuses on testing. Unfortunately, John McCain has embraced the policies of George Bush. He may be promising to change some of his positions, but why take the chance? Rich people, and people who want to do well and have your children do well: the Obama/Biden ticket is the one for you.
In a welcome change from character assassination, the McCain Campaign has been taking Barack Obama to task for supporting a more progressive income tax than what we currently have.
Republicans' time-honored tactic is to accuse Democrats who seek a more progressive tax structure of engaging in class warfare. Today, the McCain Campaign, with the assistance of two right-wing newspapers, took that one step further. In its new ad featuring the now famous Joe Wurzelbacher, the McCain Campaign equates Barack's income tax plan with welfare.
When facing an opponent that plans to reduce taxes for 95% of working families and a recent poll finding that a plurality of voters believe that McCain is more likely to raise their taxes, it is not surprising that McCain is searching for a new boogeyman. But, as with many other things over the last few months, the McCain Campaign failed to think this tactic through. The great majority of Americans will fare better under Barack's tax plan than John McCain's tax policy. Providing additional attention to Barack's proposed tax structure won't help John McCain. In addition, middle-class Americans will not react positively to being called the welfare queens of the 21st century.
OK. This was from a friend of mine. I'm just looking for responses.
I'd like to pose a scenario to you and see if you can explain to me how Obama's plan doesn't do what I believe it will do.
There are many things that fuel the economy, but one of these is small business growth. Small business growth means more jobs, so less expenditures on the government for welfare and more government income on taxes for the employees. Now, my issue with Obama's plan is it punishes a person to grow his business.
Let's say a small business owner is making $200k a year. Yes, it's good money, but a person who works hard and puts his ass on the line to grow a business should be rewarded financially. So, this business owner now wants to grow his business to $300k. this is how the numbers will work under Obama's plan (please correct me if I'm wrong):
$200k - 36% tax = $128k in the bank.
After growing the business to $300k:
$300k - 50% tax = $150k in the bank.
As a small business owner I look at those numbers and really don't see why I should be motivated. I would have to increase my revenue by 50% ($200k to $300k) and I'd only see a growth of $22k? I add $100k to my income and I only see the growth of $22k??? Where's the motivation to increase my small business? Why shouldn't I just stay status quo and not work any harder or hire any more employees???
This is why I believe raising taxes is a horrible thing to do to small businesses. Obama spits numbers of how this will effect a certain percentage, but he fails to realize that a small business owner is striving to grow his business. Growth = more jobs. I will not strive to do better. I will stop billing completely as soon as I hit the $200k mark so I don't pay any more. How is that going to help the economy instead of hurt it?
Ben Stein's suggestion on Larry King Live last night was the most sensible, simple and sure-fire way to recoup taxpayer money on the bailout I've heard yet: put a tax on the un-regulated insurance contracts called Credit Default Swaps (CDS) which are at the heart of the sub-prime mortgage taxpayer rip-off.
For those who are unfamiliar, a Credit Default Swap is essentially an insurance contract between two parties, where the first party (presumably the one who holds one or more sub-prime mortgages), pays the second party a premium in return for insurance that, in the event the borrower defaults, the second party pays off the face value of the mortgage.
Mr. Stein's proposal is simply to levy a tax on these transactions. The idea is not really all that radical. I happen to live in one of two states which does not have a state sales tax. In every other state, it is routine to tax commerce. What's wrong with enacting federal legislation taxing this particular form of commerce?
A secondary advantage of this proposal would be to force these transactions on to the record. The legislation could be written to include criminal penalties if it is determined later that any part of the original transaction involved fraud, or specific violations of federal statutes (such as the Truth in Lending Laws for example). This would give the incoming administration a tool for seeking out those responsible for the financial crisis and prosecuting them later.
