Obama: My Plan Will 'Spread The Wealth Around'

[wmbwinn]

"did you miss the disucssion about environmental laws and civil right laws?" -Mavdog

No, I didn't miss that. I igored it because the debate is about the economy and the powers of the executive and legislative branches in setting economic policy and taxation.

if you want to tie environment laws into that discussion, i suppose you could. But, as to the issue of off shore drilling, Congress and the Executive Branch each had its own ban on offshore drilling expansion.

As to the issue of nuclear expansion, it will take a determined Congress to work that as well.

The first and great rule of Republican forms of government is simple:

The people are in charge as represented by a Congress. When Rome was great, it was ruled by its Senate. When Rome failed, it was ruled by executive branch.

All successful Republican forms of government have overwhelming power in the Congress/legislative body.

Americans put too much faith in the Executive branch. it is like cheering for the quarterback and not realizing that the offense lives and dies with the offensive line.

The power is in Congress.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

"the rescue package is being administered by the department of the treasury......that is not run by congress but through the executive branch" -Mavdog

The president is not controlling that. The president doesn't do a darn thing with the IRS or the Federal Reserve either.

huh? the president doesn't have administration over the treasury? are you serious?

and there has been episodes of the white house using the irs to pursue people they don't particularly like. their hands wer slapped, but it did happen.

The closest that a president gets is to 'control' is appointing people to these semiautonomous departments.

Do you not recall the bitter debates in Congress about how to use the money? It is Congress that is involved with the matter of appropriating the monies and dictating how they are to be used.

Granted, the Treasury Dept. is another semiautonomous department and works on its own to a large degree. But, the Congress has worked with that process. The President has not.

heck, GW Bush couldn't figure any of that out anyway. I don't think Obama could either.

the debate is just what stated limitations the appropriations have. if it isn't tightly worded, the department has all the latitude to do what they want.

in this case, they gave the sec of the treasury an extreme amount of power, perhaps too much.

as for if obama is intelliegent enough to 'figure any of that out", sure he does.

[Burn this City]

Lies, damned lies, and economic theories...

[kappasigma]

i think most of the people on here would be in the "benefitee" category in the wealth spread

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by kappasigma

i think most of the people on here would be in the "benefitee" category in the wealth spread

Especially the ones that lose their jobs....they'll benefit a lot.

[wmbwinn]

Mavdog, I never said the treasury dept was not under the executive branch. I just said the president doesn't do anything with the treasury dept.

Congress created the Treasury Dept., the Fed Reserve, and the IRS. Congress sets their budgets (yes, I know the president submits a budget. I also know the pres doesn't sit around in quiet room and figure that budget out himself. The Pres is nothing more than a figure head as to control). The Congress is the one that argues and determines their budgets and sets the rules for the use of the budget. The Congress reviews the depts. later when they re-assess the next budget to see how that dept did with the money and if the Congressional rules in appropriations were met.

The Pres doesn't do a darn thing with these groups. He may as well be the Queen of England as to the degree that he actually gets involved.

Power is in the Congress.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Mavdog, I never said the treasury dept was not under the executive branch. I just said the president doesn't do anything with the treasury dept.

Congress created the Treasury Dept., the Fed Reserve, and the IRS. Congress sets their budgets (yes, I know the president submits a budget. I also know the pres doesn't sit around in quiet room and figure that budget out himself. The Pres is nothing more than a figure head as to control). The Congress is the one that argues and determines their budgets and sets the rules for the use of the budget. The Congress reviews the depts. later when they re-assess the next budget to see how that dept did with the money and if the Congressional rules in appropriations were met.

The Pres doesn't do a darn thing with these groups. He may as well be the Queen of England as to the degree that he actually gets involved.

Power is in the Congress.

your vision of the role of the president in affecting how economic policies of the treasury dept are carried out is very, very narrow, even wrong in many cases you've stated above.

the sec of the treasury acts as an agent of the president; they carry out the policies of the president; they sit in the president's cabinet; they chair the president's economic policy council.

the sec of the treasury does not report to congress but to the president, does not look to congress for direction, and does not look to congress for the formulation of their policies but looks to the president for these policies.

as for the "president doesn't do a darn thing" with the treasury, well, you are wrong.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

your vision of the role of the president in affecting how economic policies of the treasury dept are carried out is very, very narrow, even wrong in many cases you've stated above.

the sec of the treasury acts as an agent of the president; they carry out the policies of the president; they sit in the president's cabinet; they chair the president's economic policy council.

the sec of the treasury does not report to congress but to the president, does not look to congress for direction, and does not look to congress for the formulation of their policies but looks to the president for these policies.

as for the "president doesn't do a darn thing" with the treasury, well, you are wrong.

How many of you think that GW Bush directs the Treasury??? How many of you think Bill Clinton directed the Treasury Dept.?

How many of you think that any president since Ronald Reagan more than marginally affected the policy of the Treasury Dept.?

How many of you think GW Bush directed the war in Iraq?

Same thing. The president picks people who know what the heck they are doing and puts them in those positions and leaves them alone.

The Congress on the other hand does evaluate the budget needs and determine budget and determines priorities and holds the depts. accountable in follow up budget determinations.

[wmbwinn]

[wmbwinn]

Mavdog, I'll give you that Obama is likely to be involved with the Treasury because he has such wide sweeping changes in mind.

But, Bush was not involved. Clinton was not involved before Bush.

[Burn this City]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Especially the ones that lose their jobs....they'll benefit a lot.

Versus the thousands of people that have already lost their jobs or are going to in the next year based on all the layoffs that have been recently announced, i.e. Motorola, EA, Qwest, Gannett, Xerox, Dell, Yahoo, TI, Qimonda, ebay, Micron, NXP, Nvidia...and that's just off the top of my head...

Based on just common sense alone, one could determine that there's a reason since '92 that Democrats will be tasked with cleaning up the economic mess created by conservative voodoo economics - it doesn't work. Hence "the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression..."

You lose...thanks for playing...

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Mavdog, I'll give you that Obama is likely to be involved with the Treasury because he has such wide sweeping changes in mind.

But, Bush was not involved. Clinton was not involved before Bush.

bush seems to be uninvolved in most presidential activities, and that's the way cheney likes it....

as for clinton, you should do some homework before making these claims. bill clinton and robert rubin worked very closely, especially in the 95 crisis in mexico, and the later world monetary crisis that started in asia.

good luck with your homework...

[minkbarn]

Originally Posted by Burn this City

Versus the thousands of people that have already lost their jobs or are going to in the next year based on all the layoffs that have been recently announced, i.e. Motorola, EA, Qwest, Gannett, Xerox, Dell, Yahoo, TI, Qimonda, ebay, Micron, NXP, Nvidia...and that's just off the top of my head...

Based on just common sense alone, one could determine that there's a reason since '92 that Democrats will be tasked with cleaning up the economic mess created by conservative voodoo economics - it doesn't work. Hence "the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression..."

You lose...thanks for playing...

There is one company I know of that's hiring: Vesta is adding 1400 more jobs after adding hundreds earlier. They are a large wind turbine company in Colorado.

This is the beginning of the new green-job economy Senator Obama has been talking about. There will literally be millions of new jobs created in the coming years in green manufacturing, biofuels, geothermal, wind, and solar; both micro and macro.

Our economy can turn around quickly if these new industries are supported by the next administation, no matter who wins.

The immediate months ahead will be rough (again no matter who wins) but groundwork for a dramatic turnaround can be put in place starting in January.

[mary]

Obama just said in a Blitzer interview that there was a good case that corporate taxes should be lowered, but only if certain tax loopholes are closed that corporations use to avoid paying taxes.

I was excited to hear it, because I'm all for lowering tax rates, if it means that we also simplify the tax code.



On an unrelated note, I've yet to hear anyone explain in this thread how X percentage makes you a socialist, but Y percentage makes you a free market capitalist.

Until McCain denounces a progressive tax system, his "socialist" rhetoric is a bunch of hypocritical hooey.

[mary]

Exxon Mobil smashed its own U.S. record for quarterly profits yesterday, ringing up $14.83 billion in net income thanks to soaring summertime crude oil prices. But with crude oil prices now less than half their July peak and the economic outlook bleak, the record may stand for a while.

Man, I hope they don't find out about those sweet corporate tax rates in Ireland.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mary

Obama just said in a Blitzer interview that there was a good case that corporate taxes should be lowered, but only if certain tax loopholes are closed that corporations use to avoid paying taxes.

I was excited to hear it, because I'm all for lowering tax rates, if it means that we also simplify the tax code.



On an unrelated note, I've yet to hear anyone explain in this thread how X percentage makes you a socialist, but Y percentage makes you a free market capitalist.

Until McCain denounces a progressive tax system, his "socialist" rhetoric is a bunch of hypocritical hooey.

If obama were lowering taxes instead of flat out re-distributing wealth I might agree with you. But when you tax one group to GIVE money to another, that's socialism. And as we've seen it started out 250K, now moving quickly to less than 100K.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mary

[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Exxon+Mobil+Corporation?tid=informline"]

Man, I hope they don't find out about those sweet corporate tax rates in Ireland.

Yea maybe they could make more than 10% profit there.

[mary]

Originally Posted by dude1394

If obama were lowering taxes instead of flat out re-distributing wealth I might agree with you. But when you tax one group to GIVE money to another, that's socialism. And as we've seen it started out 250K, now moving quickly to less than 100K.

What are you referring to? I have an idea, but I want to make sure before I respond.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

If obama were lowering taxes instead of flat out re-distributing wealth I might agree with you. But when you tax one group to GIVE money to another, that's socialism. And as we've seen it started out 250K, now moving quickly to less than 100K.

So when rich people who send their kids to private schools still have to pay taxes to send everyone else's kid to public school, isn't that socialism??? (because it certainly is a redistribution of wealth...)

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mary

What are you referring to? I have an idea, but I want to make sure before I respond.

As I understand his plan is to raise tax rates so that he can re-distrubute it to folks who are not paying those same income taxes. In a series of credits.

I'm sure there are proposed investments...but that's the way he's getting to a tax break for 95% of folks.

[mary]

Originally Posted by Underdog

So when rich people who send their kids to private schools still have to pay taxes to send everyone else's kid to public school, would you consider that socialism??? (because it certainly is a redistribution of wealth...)

Exactly. The entire POINT of a progressive tax structure is to redistribute income - whether it be in the form of entitlement programs and welfare - or public goods and services.

As far as tax credits, I honestly don't think I'd support providing tax credits to people who don't pay taxes...I can agree with that much. I can tell you that Obama has recently stated that there would be an employment requirement. I can also tell you that McCain's ENTIRE HEALTH PLAN centers around providing a tax credit.

So again...just more hypocritical hooey.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Underdog

So when rich people who send their kids to private schools still have to pay taxes to send everyone else's kid to public school, is that socialism??? (because it certainly is a redistribution of wealth...)

Are you saying that the school taxes themselves are socialism? Or highway taxes, defense expenditures for pacifists, dollars for indigents?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mary

Exactly. The entire POINT of a progressive tax structure is to redistribute income - whether it be in the form of entitlement programs and welfare - or public goods and services.

As far as tax credits, I honestly don't think I'd support providing tax credits to people who don't pay taxes...I can agree with that much. I can tell you that Obama has recently stated that there would be an employment requirement. I can also tell you that McCain's ENTIRE HEALTH PLAN centers around providing a tax credit.

So again...just more hypocritical hooey.

Is it a tax credit even if you don't pay taxes? I have no problem with a tax credit that effects your tax rate.

[mary]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Is it a tax credit even if you don't pay taxes? I have no problem with a tax credit that effects your tax rate.

What if it makes your tax rate negative? Or what if it just eliminates your tax liability altogether? Or what if it reduces to your tax rate to say...1 %?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mary

What if it makes your tax rate negative?

Negative as in 0 or negativs as in plus dollars in your pocket. I'm not exactly sure about medical insurance policy... Maybe...I'd have to pay more attention to it.

Certainly I want to find a way to get more market forces into the medical system..because the third-payer system has some inherent problems.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Are you saying that the school taxes themselves are socialism? Or highway taxes, defense expenditures for pacifists, dollars for indigents?

And where does Halliburton getting $2.5 billion of OUR tax dollars in NO-BID contracts to rebuild IRAQ fall into your redistribution of wealth scheme?

($26.6 million of which went into CEO David Lesar's pocket)

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Underdog

And where does Halliburton getting $500million of OUR tax dollars in NO-BID contracts to rebuild IRAQ fall into your redistribution of wealth scheme?

I'm still confused about what you are asking. If you are saying that taxes are socialistic in nature...I'd have to agree with you? Then it obviously only becomes a matter of degree.

Halliburton provided a service and got paid for it, nothing socialistic about it.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I'm still confused about what you are asking. If you are saying that taxes are socialistic in nature...I'd have to agree with you? Then it obviously only becomes a matter of degree.

Halliburton provided a service and got paid for it, nothing socialistic about it.

I'll repeat what I added to the last post: $26.6 million of OUR TAX DOLLARS went into Halliburton's CEO David Lesar's pocket on a NO-BID contract...

The rich got richer at the expense of the common American - a redistribution of wealth...


(And spending $75 million to build a bridge over a river miles away from any strategic point Iraq is hardly "providing a service" when it comes to distributing American tax dollars...)

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I'll repeat what I added to the last post: $26.6 million of OUR TAX DOLLARS went into Halliburton's CEO David Lesar's pocket on a NO-BID contract...

The rich got richer at the expense of the common American - a redistribution of wealth...


(And spending $75 million to build a bridge over a river miles away from any strategic point Iraq is hardly "providing a service" when it comes to distributing American tax dollars...)

Well you can keep repeating it and it still doesn't make much sense imo. If you are saying that the guvment does a crappy job of spending our money I agree with you. I'd like to see them take a lot less of it and guit spending so much of it.

I would expect that the no-bid was because there aren't that many halliburtons out there willing to have their employees shot and possibly beheaded. You pissed about Iraq..that's a different debate.

Again..they were offered a contract and provided a service.. the essence of capitalism. Nothing socialist about it.

[Mavdog]

the distribution of the federal tax burden is the underlying issue.
here is the current breakdown of tax payments by quintile.

here is obama's proposal and how the tax burden will be felt by each quintile.

here is mccain's proposal and how the tax burden will be felt by each quintile.

the bottom line: both candidates proposals are tax cuts, mcain givin more of a total cut than obama.

the difference is who gets the tax cuts. mccain gives almost no tax cut to the lowest quintile, modest cuts to the 2nd and 3 rd lower quintile, and most of the cuts to the two highest quintiles.

conversley obama gives the greatest tax cuts to the lowest, and steadily reduces the tax cut in each quintile with the highest quintile getting a tax increase.

interesting that the average tax rate for obama ends up at 21.8% while mccain's proposal results in a 21.0% average tax rate.

each quintile in obama's plan has a less average tax rate than mccain's except for the highest quintile, and in obama's proposal each quintile gets a greater positive change in their after tax income except the highest quintile when compared to mccain's.

in answer to one of the questions asked, yes, the lowest quintile of workers do get a a greater tax refund than they put in in income tax payments. however i believe it is important to note that this quintile will still pay some federal taxes (primarily through employment taxes) even with no income tax liability.

hope these charts help understand the two candidates proposals.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well you can keep repeating it and it still doesn't make much sense imo. If you are saying that the guvment does a crappy job of spending our money I agree with you. I'd like to see them take a lot less of it and guit spending so much of it.

well, it does "make sense" in the concept that no-bid contract awards have no assurance that the cost of that contract is fair, or assurance that a no-bid contract is awarded with no extraordinary monies going to friends of the people awarding the contract.

there should not be any no-bid government contracts, there is really no valid reason to do so. there are always at least two service providors who should be competing for the contract to make certain that the cost of the service is as low as possible and no element of above reasonable payments are made.

I would expect that the no-bid was because there aren't that many halliburtons out there willing to have their employees shot and possibly beheaded. You pissed about Iraq..that's a different debate.

Again..they were offered a contract and provided a service.. the essence of capitalism. Nothing socialist about it.

there are other service providors who cn do just what hallibuton does and there is no valid reason to award any firm a no-bid contract.

this is not "the essence of capitalism", as capitalism involves competition. no-bid contracts are void of any competition, and they are opposite of what capitaism involves.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I'm still confused about what you are asking. If you are saying that taxes are socialistic in nature...I'd have to agree with you? Then it obviously only becomes a matter of degree.

Halliburton provided a service and got paid for it, nothing socialistic about it.

Well, it is true that most people call it corporatist/fascist, but fascism could also be called national socialism, so once again we're back at something being socialist.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Again..they were offered a contract and provided a service.. the essence of capitalism. Nothing socialist about it.

Capitalism relies on consumers (people who've earned money by providing services) to spend money on things they want. In this case the government takes money from people who've earned it and spends it on things the robbed ones might not have wanted to buy. There's no free market transaction involved. Free market transactions rely on two parties exchanging their properties.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by mary

On an unrelated note, I've yet to hear anyone explain in this thread how X percentage makes you a socialist, but Y percentage makes you a free market capitalist.

Very, very good point.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by mary

On an unrelated note, I've yet to hear anyone explain in this thread how X percentage makes you a socialist, but Y percentage makes you a free market capitalist.

Thank you. These guys have just both voted for an 850 billion rescue package to incompetent bankers. But the discussion is about 1 million pork here and another million there....

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the distribution of the federal tax burden is the underlying issue.
here is the current breakdown of tax payments by quintile.

here is obama's proposal and how the tax burden will be felt by each quintile.

here is mccain's proposal and how the tax burden will be felt by each quintile.

the bottom line: both candidates proposals are tax cuts, mcain givin more of a total cut than obama.

the difference is who gets the tax cuts. mccain gives almost no tax cut to the lowest quintile, modest cuts to the 2nd and 3 rd lower quintile, and most of the cuts to the two highest quintiles.

conversley obama gives the greatest tax cuts to the lowest, and steadily reduces the tax cut in each quintile with the highest quintile getting a tax increase.

interesting that the average tax rate for obama ends up at 21.8% while mccain's proposal results in a 21.0% average tax rate.

each quintile in obama's plan has a less average tax rate than mccain's except for the highest quintile, and in obama's proposal each quintile gets a greater positive change in their after tax income except the highest quintile when compared to mccain's.

in answer to one of the questions asked, yes, the lowest quintile of workers do get a a greater tax refund than they put in in income tax payments. however i believe it is important to note that this quintile will still pay some federal taxes (primarily through employment taxes) even with no income tax liability.

hope these charts help understand the two candidates proposals.

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


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.

[wmbwinn]

I don't think there are many companies with the capacity of Haliburton. Do some research on that one. We're talking thousands of trucks and tankers on the ground, thousands of personnel, etc. all available tomorrow to compete with Haliburton. I know it is tempting to assume that Haliburton got the contract due to Cheney. But, tell me, who else could have done what Haliburton did?

[mary]

1)factor in the cancellation of the Bush Tax Cuts

I don't think he's going to cancel them. They were written into law as temporary tax cuts.

[mary]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I don't think there are many companies with the capacity of Haliburton. Do some research on that one. We're talking thousands of trucks and tankers on the ground, thousands of personnel, etc. all available tomorrow to compete with Haliburton. I know it is tempting to assume that Haliburton got the contract due to Cheney. But, tell me, who else could have done what Haliburton did?

Baker Hughes Inc.

Schlumberger Limited

[wmbwinn]

None of the figures for taxation takes into account a cancellation or expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts.