Rebulican View: = War

 Democrate View: = Wait

Diana B, I agree with you. I say those between
$50,000 and $80,000 need it the most. But we have a government who thinks a family can live on $20,000.

Republican view = defend

Democrat view = appease

Its really very simple.  Cut taxes on the rich and a pile of money otherwise heading for government spending goes to a tiny minority of people who already have much more than they need.  According to the idiots that money is sacred and will go into "investnment", with a little trickle down to the middle class.  WRONG.  That money goes into portfolios and stock investments.  All that does is drive up stock prices, making the wealthy richer.  

On the other hand when you give money back to the middle class, which makes up roughly 99.5% of America, the money goes into direct return in the form of spending.  That money goes to businesses, large and small, which drives up income, increases investment and employment, and generates a faster growing and more stable economy.  Furthermore, when the wealthy get a tax cut a large portion of that money goes overseas, doing nothing for our economy, stock prices or anything, other than helping the wealthy overseas.  When a tax cut goes to the middle class very little of that money goes overseas.

I seriously doubt that the one half of one percent of the richest people in America, the only ones served by republican economics are posting here on First Read.  The idiotic postings we are seeing are coming from poor dupes and hateful people.  They would rather see other people suffer than do better themselves.

Republicans think you should pull yourself up by your boot straps.

Democrats give you the boots!

Now it is time to BOOT the repukes to the curb!

Republican = taxpayer

Democrat = deadbeat

Bee I know what you are saying but it is still a gain. If you are relying it as sole income will you be put in the poor house or if you are doing well now does that mean you won't be able to buy that one extra item with small increase. It's still a net gain and not a net loss. Some people hate to loss a little extra money I guess....I would call it greed, but that would be too crass since I don't know your situation.

J.D. as with this Republican economy and unfettered capitalism the events you described are exactly what have happened. Deregulation resulting in a credit crunch and predatory lending in the aim of making a profit. Notice how wholesale prices keep rising. When the middle class suffers the bottom falls out. I'm not anti-capatalist but I do believe in balance.

CJ:  The good economy during the 90's did not come about as the result of restricted capitalism and increased regulation, did it?  

Banking and lending are highly regulated and that hasn't changed during the Bush administration.  There has been varying rates of inflation (increases in wholesale prices) for the past 50 years, through all administrations and, historically speaking, inflation remains modest.

Deregulation has nothing to do with the "credit crunch" because there has been no deregulation.  Deregulation does not cause predatory lending because there have been no regulatory changes in this administration that changed things from the way they were during the 90's.  As I recall we had a pretty good burst of the tech bubble before Clinton left office, attributable to factors that developed in the 90's economy.  A lot of people were hurt by that including average folks with very average investments.  I know that 2000 was the first time my retirement investments actually had a significant negative return, on the order of 8% that year.  Had some declines in 2001 and 2002, though not as much.

Now, if you want to implicate lower interest rates which benefit the consumer, especially where it comes to home-ownership, (yes, despite the excesses you will cite)then make your case.  That is probably the one factor that helped fuel the real estate boom more than any other. Despite the negatives, the overall effects on home ownership and opportunity have been positive.

As for the rich, God Bless 'em, especially the generous and benevolent wealthy class we have in this country.  That one half of one percent provides more than 50% of every public expenditure that you can name.  

There is not a single dollar sent to the government that doesn't originate with a business somewhere and business owners are the ones that provide the employment that funds the social security system and the part of the federal government that they aren't already funding directly.

The top 20% provide over 80% of an almost three trillion dollar federal budget.  How much more do you suggest would be fair?

I would imagine that all philanthropic organizations are funded better than 80% by the rich.  I've never seen an average wage earner establish a foundation and none that I've ever seen have been funded by average wage earners to any significant extent.

Who pays the most real estate tax or the most sales tax?  Disproportionately, it's the rich and of course it's because they have more.  God knows where the $3 trillion federal budget would be if the rich suddenly disappeared.

As for Obama's tax proposal:  As a very average middle class citizen I might benefit some.  But not any more than I did from the Bush tax changes and probably less when the long term effects of an increase in the capital gains tax impact my modest retirement portfolio.  

Obama's proposal is mundane and a standard politician's attempt to buy votes from the essentially uninformed.

You say you believe in balance.  Can you show me an ecnonomic system anywhere that provides more overall balance and opportunity to the lower and middle classes than the one we have now?

Wholesale prices are rising as a result of energy prices. Not the subprime mess. Yesterday,oil per bbl rose to a near record 81 bucks,courtesy of our ''war for oil''in Iraq,which leaves the lefties having to explain why gas prices keep rising instead of falling, while there is not a single American oil contract anywhere in Iraq.[Hunt Co.is trying to change this with the Kurds. We shall see]. Observe that there is no ''jawboning the Arabs''in Congress,as Pelosi demanded the Republicans do back when it was they who controlled that branch. Worse,a pack of leftwingers in Mexico decided to go ape and start blowing pipelines up aggravating international supply.
         The deadline is 4.50$ a gallon at a nationwide average. This is where[ALEXANDERS Gas and Oil Trends,May,2007],companies will begin massive layoffs and wholesale prices will outstrip earned income even at the discount-stores level. You will have observed that the Congress,in well over eight months,and all during a time when gas rose to record levels breaching in May,the 1982-for-inflation record,has done nothing.
Pie-in-the-sky Ethanol schemes are already being disgarded due to their effects on emerging-nations food prices and supply as well as their near-non-existance as fuel stations in the US. Nuke plants are getting a second look,but most plants are co-generational anyway and do not use petroleum as a main power source outside of oil-bearing coal,which is unpopular,and ships that use conventional fuel oils. This is nearly exclusively confined to the automobile,military, and aircraft.
       This situation is untenable and economically dangerous. 5.00$ P/G will bring between 8 and 10% unemployment which will create a cycle of breakdown. More people[in HillaryLand],unemployed but who must have mandatory health insurance which will engender higher taxes for government-subsidies which will create more unemployed,which will...You get the picture.
        It is useful to observe that not once have the Democrats demanded an appearence by the chiefs of the Big Three automakers in order to nail down CAFE standards. The UAW is placing its weight behind Hillary,as will the TEAMSTERS.[both of which are fighting these standards]. The result is expectant. Here are a few examples.

The FORD EDGE: 19-21 MPG in V-6

The DODGE CALIBER 19-21 MPG in V-6

The JEEP COMMANDER 17-19 MPG in V-6

The CHEVROLET MONTE CARLO 21 MPG [CITY].

Bear in mind that these are regular-fleet vehicles with such wretched fuel economy,nor does any company push the smaller more fuel-efficient[cheaper,therefore unprofitable] vehicles which are a one-line minority in all three companies. Pass to the larger diesal-engine trucks which are an American lifeline to keeping wholesale prices low,and the result of 4-5.00 P/G will be catastrophic,with even basic commodities rising to unreachable levels for the poor-working-middle class.Meats,fruits,vegetables,dairy,even non-perishable goods,clothing,electronics,toys,tools ,furniture and/other will see their prices rise in an inflationary spiral,leading to more layoffs. And these effects will be immediate,as well as prolonged.
 

One other thing:  It's been demonstrated that lower capital gains taxes result in greater capital gains tax revenue to the government.  That's part of what helped create the somewhat mythical and shortlived budget surpluses in the late 90's, none of which were expected or predicted by the administration then.  These surpluses were significantly driven by capital gains taxes.

With lower rates, investors are more likely to take the gains and pay the taxes.

"Republican = taxpayer

Democrat = deadbeat"

That is one of the most offensive things I have ever read.  I wish all the Democrats could stop paying taxes and then the Republicans would have no choice but to fight this war with toy guns.

I mean at least say something true, like....

Democrat = Smart
Republican = Stupid  :)

Richard thanks for the information...believe it or not I am with you. I know that long term implementations of plans like Obama's and Bush's tax cuts have short term gains but can have negative impact over the long term. I understand Bee's complaint, but I think a short term "correction" or policy to balance certain economic factors is acceptible...then let them expire and let the economy tend to itself. And Lee I know what you were stating as well, but what I said was a subtle dig at oil companies. Not that the current Democrats or Republicans can or want to do anything to that would actually be effective. As long as significant resources are poured into Iraq (not to mention the effects of oil speculation) there will be deficits and a see saw economy even though some have managed to benefit greatly.

Republican = Winner

Democrat = Surrender Monkey

I heard someone say he'd better get going, speaking of Obama.  I think he is going, however, there seems to be a virtual blackout of Obama in NY by the media.  Moreover, there are some of you out there that seem to have a knee jerk reaction to anything he suggests and immediately criticize it w/o consideration.  One voicer indicated that the capitol gains tax would be raised to 40 percent.  The suggestion was 21 to 28 percent.  Give your comments some thought, before you comment.  He takes no money from lobbyist and  is fighting for the common people of the nation.  I can tell you this, if one had left this country and were isolated for the last ten to fifteen years, one would not recognize it upon return.  It is not the same country that I grew up in.  Despite the problems,racism, Korea, Vietnam, drugs, poverty, there was a sense of hope which has seemed to dissipate over the last few decades.  The dollar is worthless, there are more laws restricting movement and there is a profound sense of hopelessness that is spreading through the country's working class families.  If the European countries can educate there people with out them have to mortgage their lives away then why can then why can't my RICH country do this instead of importing brains.  I think Obama wants to take care of American people.

…50,000 and under?  What?!  What about a family (like mine) making 65,000 to 70,000 per year?  I guess Obama considers us the "elite".  Under the Bush tax cuts (which the Dem’s say are exclusively for the rich) I have $2500.00 more in my pocket every year that I didn’t have under Clinton…that is a fact.  We need to make that permanent.  The Democrats need to clearly define what they consider middle class in terms of income.  You will very rarely if ever see any of them do that…the ambiguity of the middle class income range allows democrats to take care of their constituency while the working backbone of this country suffers under higher taxes and socialist economic policy.  Go McCain!

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):