Evidence ??? EXCUSE ME, McCain just VOTED for a 700 Billion Bailout. I believe Obama will keep the tax increases moderate only and engage in responsible job growing spending (infrastructure, energy). all in all, he'll balance the budget. and by stopping the war in Irak, that's 10 Billlion more in US coffers per MONTH.
The economy improved despite the tech bubble bust, the Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, etc. fiasco, 9/11 (which cost the markets almost 2 trillion dollars alone), and a small recession. Actually the economy was already in recovery when Clinton came to office.
Its funny that you dont even mention that we need to increase revenue. lol and what I think doesnt matter? ok...They both promise to lower taxes. The difference is Obama wants to lower them for working class people, and mccain wants to lower them for the wealthy. Thats just a fact. You think mccain is going to turn some corner from the last 8 years of voting with bush's spending policies and suddenly be this amazing fiscal conservative? You fall for that? I bet you dont even notice that 5 minutes after mccain says he will enact a spending freeze, he also says he will buy failing mortgages, build many nuclear power plants (each costs billions to build) and balance the budget. Hmmmm. We have to cut spending on things we can afford to cut, and increase them on economic, alternative energy causes etc. Or we could just do it the conservative way and promise lower taxes and also promise everyone the world everything they want. We dont need money...thats what debt is for right? Get a grip. Its easy to have our cake and eat it too! After all. our kids are going to be the ones who have to pay this no DOUBLED national debt...not us. Thanks guys. -sincerely one of those kids who has to pay your debt
Polls gave Bush a winner vs Al Gore, they tightened a little bit after his DUI came out. but he still had a lead going into election day. polls gave Bush a winner, except for a small bounce after the convention. Fool me once........
Nah,Because the GOP instead of doing the responsible thing and moderately increasing taxes , or cutting spending put the liabilities on the nation's credit card (national debt)...so that Paris Hilton gets her Tax cut. Not only have the screwed this country, they're intellectually dishonest and refuse to own their mistakes.
It is not up to me to keep you informed. If you paid attention to the news you would know that he has stated that he will increase many other taxes. What you "believe" does not jive with what Obama has promised. He has promised massive new spending. John McCain has promised spending cuts.
I'm SUPER informed. There is no truth to your bullshit, get a clue. The only "spending" he promised is Alternative energy and Infrastructure. Get your facts. Universal Healthcare (Not a mandate, you and your cult members can opt out) will help US MFG corporations regain a competitive foothold. You're repeating the right's talking points. There is no substance to your claims. before we get to it, because I know what's really bugging you and why you vote GOP. I don't give a rat's ass about blacks or social welfare programs but i'm not going to let stupid insecure uneducated whites drag me and the country with them into the abyss.
JFK, Reagan and Bush 43 illustrated that lowering taxes increases government revenue. Obama is willing to let the Bush tax cuts expire and then he is going to add more increases of other taxes. It is a question of the lesser of two evils. John McCain is certainly not perfect, but he is a damn sight better than Obama who wants to increase taxes and massively increase spending as a matter of policy. John McCain's policy will be to reduce both taxes and spending. This is what is needed for our floundering economy.
From todays WSJ ............ Barack Obama declared last week that his economic plan begins with "one word that's on everyone's mind and it's spelled J-O-B-S." This raises the stubborn question that Senator Obama has never satisfactorily answered: How do you create more jobs when you want to levy higher tax rates on the small business owners who are the nation's primary employers? Loyal Democrats have howled over the claim that small businesses will get soaked by the Obama tax plan, so we thought we would seek an authority they might trust on the issue: Democratic Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus of Montana. Here is what Mr. Baucus wrote in a joint press release with Iowa Republican Charles Grassley on August 20, 2001, when they supported the income tax rate cuts that Mr. Obama wants to repeal: ". . . when the new tax relief law is fully phased in, entrepreneurs and small businesses -- owners of sole proprietorships, partnerships, S corporations, and farms -- will receive 80 percent of the tax relief associated with reducing the top income tax rates of 36 percent to 33 percent and 39.6 percent to 35 percent." Then they continued with a useful economics tutorial: "Experts agree that lower taxes increase a business' cash flow, which helps with liquidity constraints during an economic slowdown and could increase the demand for investment and labor." Twelve Senate Democrats voted for those same tax cuts. And just to be clear on one point: An increase in "the demand for investment and labor" translates into an increase in J-O-B-S. So if lowering these tax rates creates jobs, then it stands to reason that raising these taxes will mean fewer jobs. From 2003 to 2007 with the lower tax rates in place, the U.S. economy added eight million jobs, or about 125,000 per month. The Small Business Administration says small business wrote the paychecks for up to 80% of new jobs in 2005, for example. Mr. Obama's tax increase would hit the bottom line of small businesses in three direct ways. First, because 85% of small business owners are taxed at the personal income tax rate, any moderately successful business with an income above as little as $165,000 a year could face a higher tax liability. That's the income level at which the 33% income tax bracket now phases in for individuals, and Mr. Obama would raise that tax rate for those businesses to 36%. Second, the Obama plan phases out tax deductions (the so-called PEP and Pease provisions), thus raising tax rates imposed on this group by another 1.5 percentage points. Finally, Mr. Obama would require many small business owners to pay as much as a four-percentage-point payroll tax surcharge on net income above $250,000. All of this would bring the federal marginal small business tax rate up to nearly 45%, while big business would continue to pay the 35% corporate tax rate. Mr. Obama responds that more than nine of 10 small businesses would not pay these higher taxes. Last Thursday he scoffed in response to the debate over Joe the Plumber, saying that not too many plumbers "make more than $250,000 a year." He's right that most of the 35 million small businesses in America have a net income of less than $250,000, hire only a few workers, and stay in business for less than four years. However, the point is that it is the most successful small- and medium-sized businesses that create most of the new jobs in our dynamic society. And they are precisely the businesses that will be slammed by Mr. Obama's tax increase. Joe the Plumber would get hit if he expanded his business and hired 10 to 15 other plumbers. An analysis by the Senate Finance Committee found that of the filers in the highest two tax brackets, three out of four are small business owners. A typical firm with a net income of $500,000 would see its tax burden rise to $166,000 a year under the Obama plan from $146,000 today. According to a Gallup survey conducted for the National Federation of Independent Business last December and January, only 10% of all businesses that hire between one and nine employees would pay the Obama tax. But 19.5% of employers with 10 to 19 employees would be socked by the tax. And 50% of businesses with 20 to 249 workers would pay the tax. The Obama plan is an incentive to hire fewer workers. For many months Mr. Obama and his band of economists have claimed that taxes don't matter much to growth or job creation. But only last week Mr. Obama effectively admitted that even he doesn't believe this. His latest "stimulus" proposal includes a $3,000 refundable tax credit for businesses that hire new workers in 2009 or 2010. So what sense does it make to offer targeted and temporary tax relief for some small businesses, while raising taxes by far more and permanently on others? Raising marginal tax rates on farmers, ranchers, sole proprietors and small business owners is no way to stimulate the economy -- and it's certainly no way to create J-O-B-S.
Your answer is typical Republican crap of ducking a question and changing the subject when the answer is not what" true believers" think it should be. Your comment still does not answer the question of what data do you use to answer whether the tax cuts helped hurt or were neutral. With all the economic data available, it should be easy, assuming the premise is true, to back up the claim the Bush tax cuts were better than leaving the rates alone. I'll take +22 million jobs vs less than 5 million anyway you cut the cheese. Seneca