LP Presidential Poll - Page 5

On October 31 2008 06:33 Babs wrote: McCain. Obama plans to spend America broke, "Altogether, Mr. Obama is promising at least $4.3 trillion of increased spending and reduced tax revenue from 2009 to 2018 -- roughly an extra $430 billion a year by 2012-2013" - Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122480790550265061.html?mod=article-outset-box There is almost no way the American government can source these funds. It is described in detail in the article, but basically "the harsh reality is that this Democrat's quest for hundreds of billions more revenue each year would have to reach deep into the pockets of the people much lower on the economic ladder. Even then he'd come up short." In addition Obama plans to give licences and social security benefits to illegal immigrants (in the past he has already voted for these reforms S.Amdt.3985 to S.2611). If you have any conservative view, this should immediately strike him off the list.

If you look ALL estimates say that both McCain and Obama are going to increase the deficit. It's a question of how you want the deficit to be increased, not whether we're going to fix it. One big difference is that McCain promises to balance the budget in his first 4 years which ALL economists say is a load of BS. I don't like being pandered too and btwn the gas tax holiday, the promise to balance the budget and a bunch of other things, McCain has become the king of pander.

I have seen that Obama is ok with helping illegal immigrants become legal, but you make it sound like he just wants to find em all and give em a license and social security money. He has a process that they need to go through and it's not a handout. I've heard about the license thing and I think that he is ok with being more lenient on that and giving it to em before they finish everything, but I've never heard of him giving SS to illegals. I find that hard to believe and had the impression that he would give them a path to citizenship and once they became citizens they would get things like SS. Also I think part of allowing the licenses is to get people into the system and on path to becoming tax paying citizens.

Lastly, on immigration McCain basically proposed a lot of similar views in his own immigration bill, but then he switched his position when he ran for president because he realized that republicans didn't like his bill. So now he OPPOSES THE BILL HE WROTE!! WTF kind of consistency or character is that?

Voting for Obama

voting obama

he seems like a relatively honest and intelligent individual and carries himself with dignity. I see him reaching out to the international community more and approaching situations diplomatically, which is something McCain just has no chance of doing. I agree with his tax plan but I dont see it passing. Raising taxes 12% or whatever it is on the rich and powerful just isnt going to happen. I also dont see much getting done in the way of healthcare or energy independence, its just too expensive. I kind of fear he's just not going to turn around the bad economy and wont be able to afford any of his proposals, but whatever, getting someone in office who's the opposite of stupid and arrogant is priority #1. The US has a lot of healing to do cuz of Bush.


McCain - really not so bad as far as Republicans go, I think he gets some unfair heat from most liberals. But still, we're at war in 2 countries and could easily go to a third, and the economy is going to shit and he wants to cut taxes for the wealthy? When will people realize when u really need fckin money (and we obv do right now) u gotta get it from somewhere.

Ron Paul - obv awesome cuz of poker, and I have a couple of econ student friends that love him for whatever reason, but he's still a republican :{

Nader - gets unfair heat from all sides. Guy ran on a platform of attacking corporate crime in 2000. Democrats pretty much ignored the issue he cared about most which is partly why they lost the election, and now after our economy has been raped by scandal after scandal people are starting to wake up and realize that u gotta take this shit seriously.

On October 30 2008 16:42 SakiSaki wrote: The fact that if the republicans win there is a good chance Sarah fucking Palin, a completely clueless, closeminded and unqualified hockey mom could become president in one of the most powerful nations in the world should be argument enough to not vote republican.

yeah this is like horrifyingly scary to me

MATT DAAAAYMON

On October 30 2008 17:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: rofl its so hilarious when people claim obama is socialist

Universal health care and the redistribution of wealth. Go figure.

NYtimes has a good article today citing independent research done by the Brookings Institute and Deloitte examining the tax policies of the two presidential candidates:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/politics/31taxes.html

and NMcNasty, where do you get the 12% figure? This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say the general american public, and even the educated american public vastly overestimates the impact of obama's tax policy.

And even I am guilty because even my previous calcuations overestimated the impact. As you can see here:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/10/31/us/20081031_TAXES_GRAPHIC.html

someone making 500K a year would pay an extra $3363 in taxes which works out to six tenths of 1% of their gross income.

washington post

On October 31 2008 15:42 NMcNasty wrote: washington post

interesting, I'm gonna research further into how they came up with those calculations. First thing to note is that only applies to people earning over 2.8 million which includes people earning billions of dollars a year. So the average increase of 700K does not apply to those earning 2.8 but rather is skewed by the fact that someone like james simons will pay an additional hundred million or so on his multi billion dollar gross.

secondly, I find it hard to figure out how the average tax bill will go up 11.5% when the top marginal tax rate is increased by 4.6%. They must include a lot of income on capital gains, but it still doesn't quite add up to me. I have a suspicion that the numbers are engineered but let me dig a little deeper here and read the actual brookings report before I make definitive judgments.

ah i see, it isn't an increase of 11.5% off the gross income, it is an increase of 11.5% off of the taxes paid.

So lets say you earned 1 million and paid 300K in taxes for an effective rate of 30%. If you're taxes paid increases to 345K for an effective rate of 34.5%, your tax rate went up by 4.5% BUT, that 4.5% represents an increase of 11.5% off of the 30%.

Now I call that an increase of 4.5%, but if you wanted to magnify the effect, you can call it an increase of 11.5% of taxes paid.

oh and the top bracket in the washington post graphic linked by NMcNasty

It says above 2.87 million (top .1%) will pay an average of an extra $701,885 in taxes.

However, it does not show that the average income of the top .1% is actually 6.1 million. That range only starts at 2.87 million. So they make it look like someone earning 2.87 million will pay an extra 700K in taxes when it fact it is only a fraction of that amount. All these little things give the appearance that the tax hike is bigger than it actually is.

cuz people will see oh my taxes will go up 11.5% and I make 3 million so I'll pay an additional 11.5% of 3 million for a sum of 345K. That is the false assumption they take. When in fact they PAID 900K in taxes and the 11.5% increase is on the 900K paid so it is an extra 135K which works out to an increase of 4.5% of their income.

On October 30 2008 22:02 Zorglub wrote: Show nested quote + On October 30 2008 21:34 devon06atX wrote:   On October 30 2008 21:13 SpasticInk wrote: in sweden a guy with that income (not from poker tough) would pay someting like 1,32 millions in yearly taxation yes, but sweden, denmark and a few other EU countries enjoy many many many more benefits than the americans enjoy (and even a couple more than canada). a lot of people say sweden is *too* progressively liberal or whatever, i am a huge supporter of the way you guys have been running things. apparently denmark has the highest income taxes in the world? although, they also enjoy great medical care, great infrastructure, very little-to-no corruption in politics (aka, lol at USA) and FREE (yes, free) higher levels of education. as a canadian, fuck.. that sexy free university + masters degree looks pretty goddamned sexy Yup we are always among the highest tax payers, but we were also: Happiest people in the world 2008, Best city to live in 2008, Best country to conduct business in 2008. (All renowned studies by big universities or magasines), we get 1200$ a month for studying, free healthcare, free education, free elderly care, pensions when you get old, money if you get unemployed, social security, 1.6% unemployed. We use reverse trickle down system (socialism) and it works great over here, no really poor people, big middle class, some rich and a few stinking rich. I think my tax money is well spent and I dont think our wages would be as high as they are without this high tax.

This.

Though I'd like to know how to get 1200$ in SU. Thats like 6000kr. You would need to be living on your own, have divorced extremely poor parents, be handicapped and have 3 babies.
I like how we run things in Denmark and I'm gratefull for the 400$ a month I got while in school, but 1200$ is a bit high.

Also, great pay. Even the shittiest jobs you can get aslong as you don't have a criminal record is 20$/hour

Where's the option for 3rd party or Don't vote (because they are both douchebags).

On October 31 2008 15:20 TheHuHu3 wrote: Show nested quote + On October 30 2008 17:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: rofl its so hilarious when people claim obama is socialist Universal health care and the redistribution of wealth. Go figure.

zomg somebody else see's what i am saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaying.

how about the fact that both mccain and obama voted for the bailout, which is the biggest step towards socialism since FDR implamented social welfare in the 30's??

Spor - there are mannnny more than two parties. On the ballot in Texas there are...

"Election date is 11/04/2008




Name Party
Jonathan Allen Independent, Write-In, HeartQuake '08
Charles O. Baldwin Independent, Write-In, Alaskan Independence, Constitution, Constitution Party of Florida, Constitution Party of Illinois, Independent Green, Nebraska, Nominated by Petition, Reform Party of Kansas, U.S. Taxpayers, U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan
Robert L. Barr Independent, Libertarian, Write-In, Nominated by Petition
Thaddaus Hill Write-In
Alan L. Keyes Independent, Write-In, America's Independent Party, American Independent
John S. McCain Republican, Conservative Party of New York , Independence Party of New York
Cynthia Ann McKinney Independent, Green Party, Write-In, Green-Rainbow, Mountain Party, Nominated by Petition, Pacific Green, Unaffiliated, Wisconsin Green
Brian P. Moore Independent, Write-In, Liberty Union, Nominated by Petition, Socialist, Socialist Party USA
Ralph Nader No Party Affiliation, Independent, Write-In, Natural Law Party, Alaskan Independence, Ecology Party of Florida, New Mexico Independent Party, Nominated by Petition, Nomination by other than Primary, Peace, Populist
Barack H. Obama Democratic, Democratic/Farmer/Labor, Democratic-NPL, Working Families Party of New York"

10 people running from numerous parties

NSFW

+ Show Spoiler +

On October 31 2008 17:02 TenBagger wrote: cuz people will see oh my taxes will go up 11.5% and I make 3 million so I'll pay an additional 11.5% of 3 million for a sum of 345K. That is the false assumption they take. When in fact they PAID 900K in taxes and the 11.5% increase is on the 900K paid so it is an extra 135K which works out to an increase of 4.5% of their income.

Thats not what the chart shows because it lists the change in income right next to the percentages.

My guess is that u arent factoring in all the other types of taxes besides income taxes that only the super rich have to worry about.

On October 31 2008 18:21 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On October 31 2008 17:02 TenBagger wrote: cuz people will see oh my taxes will go up 11.5% and I make 3 million so I'll pay an additional 11.5% of 3 million for a sum of 345K. That is the false assumption they take. When in fact they PAID 900K in taxes and the 11.5% increase is on the 900K paid so it is an extra 135K which works out to an increase of 4.5% of their income. Thats not what the chart shows because it lists the change in income right next to the percentages. My guess is that u arent factoring in all the other types of taxes besides income taxes that only the super rich have to worry about.

Hmm... you are actually right NMcnasty, 700K extra in taxes paid is 11.5% of the gross of the top .1% of incomes.

I found the actual report that they are citing and you can read it here:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf

If you go to page 4, they show 2 charts. First chart is titled

"Figure 2.Obama and McCain Tax Proposals as Described by Campaign Staff and Economic AdvisersAverage Percentage Change in After-Tax Income, 2012"

and it shows a change in after tax income of a little roughly 3% for the top .1% of earners which is consistent with my calculations according to what is listed on obama's website.

However, there is a second chart titled:

"Obama and McCain Tax Proposals as Described in their Stump SpeechesAverage Percentage Change in After-Tax Income, 2009-"

and that is the one that shows 11.5% change that is quoted on the washington post article that you linked. As hard as I looked, I could not find the details about the differences according to their "stump speeches". The fact that the basis of these calculations are nowhere to be found and is based upon the author's interpretation of their "stump speeches" make it particularly dubious to me. Kinda like in science if you can't replicate an experiment, then it is worthless. Likewise, if they don't make public the details of assumptions that they used to make the calculations other than the author's braod interpretation of the candidates "stump speeches" then it is absolutely worthless IMHO.

imo

I reread the whole report again in depth and they its amazing how incredibly vague they are on the stump speech assumption. I mean, we have a thorough written outline of their tax policies and if you are gonna make a whole new set of calculations that differ from it, at least tell us what variables you're changing.

So as a footnote in page 1 they state:

1. See text for description of provisions included in campaign advisors and stump speech versions of candidates' tax plans.

Now in the body of the text, the only mention of any difference between the stump speech calculations and the official campaign policy calculations are the following:

Obama has proposed raising the payroll tax for those earning over $250,000. Again, he has not provided details, but TPC assumes this would be a 2 percent income tax surcharge on adjusted gross income above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for others and an additional 2 percent payroll tax for employers on each worker’s earnings above those levels. Such a plan would increase taxes on high-income workers by nearly $400 billion over a decade.

Ok, so Obama has mentioned the possibility of raising payroll tax on those earning over 250K, but has given zero details and the TPC takes it upon themselves to assume that the figure will be 2%. Where did they get this number from? The fact that they would make these calculations and pass them off as fact when it is based on something that Obama never said that he would definitely do and to arbitrarily assign a number for the increase is flat out ridiculous.

Now at the bottom of page 3, they state the following:

The new TPC analysis updates earlier sets of estimates released in June and July 2008. The revised estimates reflect changes in each candidate’s plans, additional details released by the campaigns (particularly that by the Obama campaign on August 14, 2008), and modifications to our tax modeling procedures.

And they end up with a few tables such as this:

"Senator Obama's Tax Proposals of August 14, 2008: Impact on Tax Revenue, 2009-18 Economic Advisers' Version (No Payroll Surtax)"

Where they give projections based upon the the campaign's official policy and without their dubious projected payroll surtax. But low and behold, they give no concrete data that about their so called projections based on "stump speeches" that they so promised on page 1.

This to me is a classic example that is mentioned by Noam Chomsky in his book "Manufacturing Consent". The so called "liberal" Brookings Institute think tank produces two sets of projections. One based on actual published tax policy and the other based on god knows what since they never bother to detail it. Then the Washington Post has a choice to publish a graphic, one based on real numbers and the other based on some arbitrary set of assumptions by the author that no one knows about. Guess which one they publish?

And all the readers of that Washington Post article, obviously do not bother to do the research that I just did and read the footnotes in the actual report, they come to believe that Obama's tax plan will raise their taxes by 11.5% of their gross annual income.