Obama: My Plan Will 'Spread The Wealth Around'

[wmbwinn]

The Bush Tax Cuts were largely aimed to stimulate the economy and so the tax cuts were corporate and with the upper eschelon. There were broader tax cuts for all. But, a lot of it was top heavy to stimulate the economy.

So, now we will have the expiration or cancellation of the Bush tax cuts and then Obama intends to increase the taxes on the top of the income/corporate/business brackets.

That will be a double whammy on the part of the economy that drives the economy...

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Mavdog, you still are ignoring how the other tax proposals play into this:
1)factor in the cancellation of the Bush Tax Cuts
2)Factor in the FICA tax that starts up again at 250K taxable income
3)Factor in the increased proposed capital gains tax

the expiration of the tax cuts are taken into account.
it also doesn't take into account specific tax credits (such as addl mortgage interest tax credit, self employed tax credit, addl college tuition tax credit) that are available to qualified filers.
the increase in the capital gain txa rate is a) small, and b) not going to mean much in today's market is it?

It is meaningless to run a chart on Obama because no one where the baseline is to start to calculate his "tax cuts".

We don't know where the baseline is after the cancellation of Bush's tax cuts.

And, then there are the other taxes to consider.

what?

the proposals are in black an white on obama's and mccain's website. pretty easy to see how to calculate the numbers.

the people who determined these charts have a competence that gives them the ability to make their numbers credible. this is a non-partisan org.

if you have something that doesn't jive with the numbers presented, lets see them.

a good question is what you find objectionable in their conclusions.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The Bush Tax Cuts were largely aimed to stimulate the economy and so the tax cuts were corporate and with the upper eschelon. There were broader tax cuts for all. But, a lot of it was top heavy to stimulate the economy.

So, now we will have the expiration or cancellation of the Bush tax cuts and then Obama intends to increase the taxes on the top of the income/corporate/business brackets.

That will be a double whammy on the part of the economy that drives the economy...

wrong. there is no increase in the corporate tax rate proposed by obama.

none.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

That will be a double whammy on the part of the economy that drives the economy...

Then why did Bush write two checks to the individual taxpayers?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mary

Baker Hughes Inc.

Schlumberger Limited

http://investor.shareholder.com/bhi/...bh_annual.html

smaller potatoes compared to Haliburton. Hit 10 Billion for the first time ever...

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=BHI

10.7 Billion market cap.

Halliburton is a roughly 18 Billion market cap company.

Point is that there is a small number of these companies and it is hard to argue that Halliburton was not just as good as any other and perhaps better. Halliburton did respond immediately and effectively.

There ability to respond so quickly and so well makes it hard to argue that they were a bad choice...

[mary]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

http://investor.shareholder.com/bhi/...bh_annual.html

smaller potatoes compared to Haliburton. Hit 10 Billion for the first time ever...

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=BHI

10.7 Billion market cap.

Halliburton is a roughly 18 Billion market cap company.

Point is that there is a small number of these companies and it is hard to argue that Halliburton was not just as good as any other and perhaps better. Halliburton did respond immediately and effectively.

There ability to respond so quickly and so well makes it hard to argue that they were a bad choice...

Hmmmm....I wonder why you didn't mention the size of Schlumberger? Maybe because its WAAYYY bigger than Halliburton. They have over 60 billion in market capital, so no, they are NOT "small potatoes"

And neither is BH for that matter.. just because Baker Hughes is smaller, doesn't mean it couldn't have placed a competitive bid. Its possible, but you have no way of knowing that just by citing their market capital. At one of my jobs, we supply general contractors. I GUARANTEE YOU that we sometimes win bids against much larger competitors.

Here are a few more.

National Oilwell Varco

Weatherford International


To suggest that there just weren't any companies that could do the job is utterly ridiculous.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

wrong. there is no increase in the corporate tax rate proposed by obama.

none.

If the Bush Tax cuts expire, the corporate tax rate goes up.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mary

Hmmmm....I wonder why you didn't mention the size of Schlumberger? Maybe because its WAAYYY bigger than Halliburton...and just because Baker Hughes is smaller, doesn't mean it couldn't have placed a competitive bid. Its possible, but you have no way of knowing that just by citing their market capital.

Point is that there is a small number of these companies and it is hard to argue that Halliburton was not just as good as any other and perhaps better. Halliburton did respond immediately and effectively.

Just repeating myself. They decided that Halliburton was the best option in a small group of possibilities.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Point is that there is a small number of these companies and it is hard to argue that Halliburton was not just as good as any other and perhaps better. Halliburton did respond immediately and effectively.

Just repeating myself. They decided that Halliburton was the best option in a small group of possibilities.

Who is "they"? Cheney, et al.?

[mary]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Point is that there is a small number of these companies and it is hard to argue that Halliburton was not just as good as any other and perhaps better. Halliburton did respond immediately and effectively.

Just repeating myself. They decided that Halliburton was the best option in a small group of possibilities.

Based on what information? What analysis?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Who is "they"? Cheney, et al.?

Yes. That doesn't mean fraud. If it was fraudulent, Congress would have taken it up for investigation and if there was any investigation that showed any evidence of fishy business, you can be darn well sure that Congress would have made noise about it, especially a Pelosi/Reid lead group. Complaining because it looks bad is one thing. Finding a problem is another thing.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mary

Based on what information? What analysis?

Based on success. They have been successful. Iraq's economy is booming.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mary

Hmmmm....I wonder why you didn't mention the size of Schlumberger? Maybe because its WAAYYY bigger than Halliburton. They have over 60 billion in market capital, so no, they are NOT "small potatoes"

And neither is BH for that matter.. just because Baker Hughes is smaller, doesn't mean it couldn't have placed a competitive bid. Its possible, but you have no way of knowing that just by citing their market capital. At one of my jobs, we supply general contractors. I GUARANTEE YOU that we sometimes win bids against much larger competitors.

Here are a few more.

National Oilwell Varco

Weatherford International


To suggest that there just weren't any companies that could do the job is utterly ridiculous.

Point is that there is a small number of these companies and it is hard to argue that Halliburton was not just as good as any other and perhaps better. Halliburton did respond immediately and effectively.

Just repeating myself again

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Yes. That doesn't mean fraud. If it was fraudulent, Congress would have taken it up for investigation and if there was any investigation that showed any evidence of fishy business, you can be darn well sure that Congress would have made noise about it, especially a Pelosi/Reid lead group. Complaining because it looks bad is one thing. Finding a problem is another thing.

Ummm...the Reps controlled the party at the time...

[mary]

You know, in the "private" sector, not getting bids on a multi-billion dollar project would probably get you fired 100% of the time.

Yet people still try to defend it.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Ummm...the Reps controlled the party at the time...

Do you believe that a Pelosi/Reid current rule would not have made BIG noise about fraud if fraud were present in an election cycle???

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mary

You know, in the "private" sector, not getting bids on a multi-billion dollar project would probably get you fired 100% of the time.

Yet people still try to defend it.

military operations don't pick the lowest bidder. They pick the right group to succeed. Success is chosen. Cost is ignored. It is war, not running Microsoft.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Point is that there is a small number of these companies and it is hard to argue that Halliburton was not just as good as any other and perhaps better. Halliburton did respond immediately and effectively.

Just repeating myself again

"Perhaps better" is the reason there should be no bid, you keep parroting? You said your peace once. What do you think you are accomplishing by repeating that Haliburton was "perhaps better"?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

"Perhaps better" is the reason there should be no bid, you keep parroting? You said your peace once. What do you think you are accomplishing by repeating that Haliburton was "perhaps better"?

That there is no grounds to assume fraud.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Do you believe that a Pelosi/Reid current rule would not have made BIG noise about fraud if fraud were present in an election cycle???

Not relevant. Try to stay on topic.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Not relevant. Try to stay on topic.

If I am off topic, then what topic are you on?

[mary]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Based on success. They have been successful. Iraq's economy is booming.

I don't think you understood my question. I'll give it another shot.

What information do you have that tells you ANOTHER COMPANY wasn't capable of doing the work at a lower price?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

That there is no grounds to assume fraud.

Fraud is not what we are talking about here. After all, who would be defrauded?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mary

I don't think you understood my question. I'll give it another shot.

What information do you have that tells you ANOTHER COMPANY wasn't capable of doing the work at a lower price?

Absolutely nothing at all.

What is your support for assuming that this was a "good ole boy" type of fraud?

What is your support for assuming that Halliburton was the wrong choice? If you are only looking at dollars, then you are missing the point that this is a military operation and dollars don't matter as much as success.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

If I am off topic, then what topic are you on?

It doesn't have anything to do with Reid and Pelosi, that's for sure.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Fraud is not what we are talking about here. After all, who would be defrauded?

You two seem only concerned with cost. I am only concerned with success.

If the no contract bid was given to Halliburton just to enrich Cheney, then fraud was committed.

[mary]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

military operations don't pick the lowest bidder. They pick the right group to succeed. Success is chosen. Cost is ignored. It is war, not running Microsoft.

Ha! Okay...that's funny on a couple of different levels.

First of all, I had three brothers in the military. Costs ARE NOT ignored.

Secondly, quality is important in the private sector too. I wasn't suggesting the government hire ma and pa kettle to rebuild Iraq.

So I'm wondering, what kind of damning evidence and information do you have about the other companies that could've potentially bid on the project?

Are they just incompetent by default, since you refuse to admit it was irresponsible of our government to NO-BID a contract that cost the taxpayers billions and billions and dollars?

Let's hear it.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

It doesn't have anything to do with Reid and Pelosi, that's for sure.

Who else would investigate an inappropriate use of executive power in war time in regards to the expenditure of American taxpayer's dollars? That is the purvey of Congress.

[mary]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Absolutely nothing at all.

What is your support for assuming that this was a "good ole boy" type of fraud?

What is your support for assuming that Halliburton was the wrong choice? If you are only looking at dollars, then you are missing the point that this is a military operation and dollars don't matter as much as success.

You still aren't following me. Where did I say this?


Edit: Nevermind, I see you did answer my question.

Absolutely nothing at all.

Thank you.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

If the Bush Tax cuts expire, the corporate tax rate goes up.

no, you are wrong.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mary

Ha! Okay...that's funny on a couple of different levels.

First of all, I had three brothers in the military. Costs ARE NOT ignored.

Secondly, quality is important in the private sector too. I wasn't suggesting the government hire ma and pa kettle to rebuild Iraq.

So I'm wondering, what kind of damning evidence and information do you have about the other companies that could've potentially bid on the project?

Are they just incompetent by default, since you refuse to admit it was irresponsible of our government to NO-BID a contract that cost the taxpayers billions and billions and dollars?

Let's hear it.

Absolutely nothing at all.

What is your support for assuming that this was a "good ole boy" type of fraud?

What is your support for assuming that Halliburton was the wrong choice? If you are only looking at dollars, then you are missing the point that this is a military operation and dollars don't matter as much as success.

I already addressed that. I am not in possession of the information that the Administration and Military used to pick Halliburton. I am not privy to their discussion of the other options.

I am just saying that there is no reason to assume that Halliburton was chosen for ill advised reasons.

I am saying that Halliburton has been very effective as a means to argue that the Admin and Military chose correctly.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

If no contract bid was given to Halliburton just to enrich Cheney, then fraud was committed.

We typically don't call this sort of thing fraud. We generally refer to it as corruption.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Who else would investigate an inappropriate use of executive power in war time in regards to the expenditure of American taxpayer's dollars? That is the purvey of Congress.

A sitting Congress.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

We typically don't call this sort of thing fraud. We generally refer to it as corruption.

semantics

or to quote the Great Obama, "Just words, Just Speeches..."

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

semantics

or to quote the Great Obama, "Just words, Just Speeches..."

LOLOL...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

A sitting Congress.

that is basically what I said. But, the current Congress is still in session at a time when Halliburton has the contract. So, the current Congress is still the "sitting Congress"

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Yes. That doesn't mean fraud. If it was fraudulent, Congress would have taken it up for investigation and if there was any investigation that showed any evidence of fishy business, you can be darn well sure that Congress would have made noise about it, especially a Pelosi/Reid lead group. Complaining because it looks bad is one thing. Finding a problem is another thing.

are you aware of the multiple lawsuits that have been filed because the current administration will not reveal the minutes of meetings where decisions such as these contracts were made?

yes, "finding a problem is another thing" when the information is hidden from the public.

it isn't an attempt to blame or demonize halliburton, it just isn't good/sound business to not have competitive bidding on contracts, especially multi billion dollar goverment contracts.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

that is basically what I said. But, the current Congress is still in session at a time when Halliburton has the contract. So, the current Congress is still the "sitting Congress"

No...no, no, no, no, no, no. That's not at all what I meant. See, you said something like "If there was corruption, don't you think the Dems would have gone after it?" And I said something like "Man, that was like six years ago, and back then it was the Reps running Congress, not the Dems."

In other words, the Dems are not part of this conversation.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, you are wrong.

This is in regard to the issue of corporate tax breaks under GW Bush. The so called "Bush tax breaks" is actually several different bills.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6307293

"Fri., Oct. 22, 2004
WASHINGTON - With no fanfare, President Bush Friday signed the most sweeping rewrite of corporate tax law in nearly two decades, showering $136 billion in new tax breaks on businesses, farmers and other groups.

Intended to end a bitter trade war with Europe, the election-year measure was described by supporters as critically necessary to aid beleaguered manufacturers who have suffered 2.7 million lost jobs over the past four years.

But opponents charged that the tax package had grown into a massive giveaway that will add to the complexity of the tax system and end up rewarding multinational companies that move jobs overseas.

There was no ceremony for the bill-signing. White House press secretary Scott McClellan announced it on Air Force One as Bush flew to a campaign appearance in Pennsylvania. Bush mentioned the new tax law at the beginning of a health care event in Canton, Ohio.

“I signed a bill that’s going to help our manufacturers — that will save $77 billion over the next 10 years for the manufacturing sector of America,” Bush said. “That will help keep jobs here.”

The handling of the corporate tax bill was in contrast to Bush’s action on Oct. 4 when he sat before television cameras on a stage in Des Moines, Iowa, to sign three tax-cut breaks popular with middle-class voters and reviving other tax incentives for businesses.

Bush’s campaign rival, Sen. John Kerry, missed the vote on the corporate tax breaks. Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said there were many important things in the bill but that “George Bush filled the bill up with corporate giveaways and tax breaks for multinational companies that send jobs overseas. In his first budget, John Kerry will call for the repeal of all the unwarranted international tax breaks that George Bush included in this bill.”

The Joint Tax Committee said the overall bill would not increase the deficit because the $136 billion in tax cuts over the next decade were balanced by $136 billion in tax increases.

Democrats contended the true costs of the tax cuts would be nearly $80 billion higher because Republicans used accounting gimmicks such as having popular provisions expire after a few years.

Keith Ashdown, a spokesman for the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, agreed.

"Our concern is they’ve used smoke and mirrors and accounting gimmicks to make the legislation look much smaller than it is," he said."

+++++++++++++++++

anyway, we don't know which Bush tax cuts Obama and his puppet Congress will slash.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

No...no, no, no, no, no, no. That's not at all what I meant. See, you said something like "If there was corruption, don't you think the Dems would have gone after it?" And I said something like "Man, that was like six years ago, and back then it was the Reps running Congress, not the Dems."

In other words, the Dems are not part of this conversation.

We are in the middle of the most hotly contested, angry Presidential contest ever in our country that I am aware of. You history buffs can point me out wrong if I am wrong.

Anyway, I am saying that if fraud/corruption was committed that the Dem Party controlling the current Congress with the continued contract to Halliburton would have made news of this.

Heck, it is national news that Palin was involved in firing a dude in Alaska...