All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > If You Are Still An Undecided Voter . . .
11/5/2012 2:35 PM
What will Obama's tax hikes accomplish?  Will they raise revenues to the treasury?  When broad based rate cuts increase revenue (due to growth), is that a bad thing?  If the rich pay a higher rate and revenues decline, is that the goal? 

What will "hiring 100K more teachers accomplish?  Will it increase our next generation's ability to function and grow?  Will "investing more money"  in education naturally cause that?

What specifically will Obama's taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" accomplish?  Will it help those who are business owners create new jobs?

What is their fair share?  Can anyone put a number on that?

I can't find anything that is clear about how the current president, with his policies, can help the economy grow...

None of that even addresses the huge moral issues I have with his worldview and view of government's role.

11/5/2012 2:40 PM
And he's had four years to define his economic direction... and provided bupkus.

If your college head coach had four years to build a competitive team, and failed as badly as Obama has, HE'D BE FIRED.  And should be.
11/5/2012 2:51 PM
Posted by silentpadna on 11/5/2012 2:35:00 PM (view original):
What will Obama's tax hikes accomplish?  Will they raise revenues to the treasury?  When broad based rate cuts increase revenue (due to growth), is that a bad thing?  If the rich pay a higher rate and revenues decline, is that the goal? 

What will "hiring 100K more teachers accomplish?  Will it increase our next generation's ability to function and grow?  Will "investing more money"  in education naturally cause that?

What specifically will Obama's taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" accomplish?  Will it help those who are business owners create new jobs?

What is their fair share?  Can anyone put a number on that?

I can't find anything that is clear about how the current president, with his policies, can help the economy grow...

None of that even addresses the huge moral issues I have with his worldview and view of government's role.

The "fair share" rhetoric is what really drives me up a wall.  The numbers just don't back that up.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

11/5/2012 3:25 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 11/5/2012 2:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 11/5/2012 2:35:00 PM (view original):
What will Obama's tax hikes accomplish?  Will they raise revenues to the treasury?  When broad based rate cuts increase revenue (due to growth), is that a bad thing?  If the rich pay a higher rate and revenues decline, is that the goal? 

What will "hiring 100K more teachers accomplish?  Will it increase our next generation's ability to function and grow?  Will "investing more money"  in education naturally cause that?

What specifically will Obama's taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" accomplish?  Will it help those who are business owners create new jobs?

What is their fair share?  Can anyone put a number on that?

I can't find anything that is clear about how the current president, with his policies, can help the economy grow...

None of that even addresses the huge moral issues I have with his worldview and view of government's role.

The "fair share" rhetoric is what really drives me up a wall.  The numbers just don't back that up.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Whenever I cite a website that shows this information, I usually get castigated by "who does the study", etc.  So instead, I would challenge readers of this thread who have genuine interest to do the following:

1.  Go to the IRS website.
2.  Download tax records for each year going back to 1900.
3.  Find the years where tax rates were substantially raised or lowered.
4.  Find the GDP numbers for each of those years.
5.  Track government treasury revenues for those years.
6.  Look for patterns (hint: they are obvious)

6.  Draw your own conclusions.

The numbers don't lie.

Then ask yourself what "raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires" is really going to accomplish.  My position is that it does accomplish somethng - just not what the proponents publicly claim it does.

This is easy research.  It takes time, but anyone that claims they are interested and knows simple math and how use a spreadsheet can verify this stuff.  The IRS numbers are what they are.  GDP versus rates versus who pays what share along with treasury revenues are facts.  And, as John Adams once said, "facts are stubborn things".

11/5/2012 3:28 PM
For those of you that support the current president, can you tell me what policies he proposes will help the economy grow and why?  Persuade me.  I haven't voted yet.
11/5/2012 4:01 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 11/5/2012 2:40:00 PM (view original):
And he's had four years to define his economic direction... and provided bupkus.

If your college head coach had four years to build a competitive team, and failed as badly as Obama has, HE'D BE FIRED.  And should be.
Would he be fired if the previous coach had cut all the star players and then another team legally blocked him from signing any big recruits?
11/5/2012 4:13 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/5/2012 4:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 11/5/2012 2:40:00 PM (view original):
And he's had four years to define his economic direction... and provided bupkus.

If your college head coach had four years to build a competitive team, and failed as badly as Obama has, HE'D BE FIRED.  And should be.
Would he be fired if the previous coach had cut all the star players and then another team legally blocked him from signing any big recruits?
1 What did Bush do to cause the crash? Asked this a lot of times. You are implying that Bush did something to cause the crash so enlighten us!

2 What did anyone on the Republican side do illegally? What didnt Obama get in his 1st 2 years that he wanted? When did Obama ever try to compromise with Republicans? Are the opposition party supposed to support the leader of the other parties agenda?
11/5/2012 4:20 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 11/5/2012 4:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/5/2012 4:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 11/5/2012 2:40:00 PM (view original):
And he's had four years to define his economic direction... and provided bupkus.

If your college head coach had four years to build a competitive team, and failed as badly as Obama has, HE'D BE FIRED.  And should be.
Would he be fired if the previous coach had cut all the star players and then another team legally blocked him from signing any big recruits?
1 What did Bush do to cause the crash? Asked this a lot of times. You are implying that Bush did something to cause the crash so enlighten us!

2 What did anyone on the Republican side do illegally? What didnt Obama get in his 1st 2 years that he wanted? When did Obama ever try to compromise with Republicans? Are the opposition party supposed to support the leader of the other parties agenda?
I'm not saying Bush caused the crash, just that if we're going to give Obama full credit/fault for the recovery, we've got to give Bush full credit/fault for the crash.
11/5/2012 4:28 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/5/2012 4:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 11/5/2012 4:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/5/2012 4:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 11/5/2012 2:40:00 PM (view original):
And he's had four years to define his economic direction... and provided bupkus.

If your college head coach had four years to build a competitive team, and failed as badly as Obama has, HE'D BE FIRED.  And should be.
Would he be fired if the previous coach had cut all the star players and then another team legally blocked him from signing any big recruits?
1 What did Bush do to cause the crash? Asked this a lot of times. You are implying that Bush did something to cause the crash so enlighten us!

2 What did anyone on the Republican side do illegally? What didnt Obama get in his 1st 2 years that he wanted? When did Obama ever try to compromise with Republicans? Are the opposition party supposed to support the leader of the other parties agenda?
I'm not saying Bush caused the crash, just that if we're going to give Obama full credit/fault for the recovery, we've got to give Bush full credit/fault for the crash.
Bull....

That's horrible logic.  Bush had a part in the crash.  Obama had a part in continuing the crash and delaying the recovery.  The cause of the crash had its roots from 30+ years ago and there are many variables, including (and not the least of which are) our uneducated consumers.  Wall Street didn't cause the bubble and didn't cause the crash, though they had a part.  Some of the more insidious parts are those companies with unholy alliances to government, whose best interests are served by under-regulation and over-regulation. 

Simplifying it as you did above is a totally unsupported assertion...

Name one policy decision that Obama has made that has accelerated an economic recovery.  If anything, he has stood in the way of several things that could have sparked one, but I know of no policy that has done anything and several that worked in just the opposite direction.
11/5/2012 4:33 PM
The stimulus.




11/5/2012 4:40 PM
Posted by moy23 on 11/5/2012 2:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 11/5/2012 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Insanity is also doing something different for the sake of doing something different.

Keep in mind about a month or so ago I was completely undecided on the presidential election. I gave both a chance and a clear "lesser of two evils" soon emerged.

Personally, I'd rather have four more years of the same policies than elect someone I have no idea what he stands for or how he'll handle any issues that may arise.

I may disagree with him on some moral and ethical issues, but when it comes to economics, taxes, and education - issues which matter very much to me - the choice to vote Obama was clear as day. On those key issues, Romney has no ****ing clue what he's doing. Romney also lies and flip flops far too much to be trusted.

ha... but a politician from Illinois is to be trusted. that's awesome.

I live in Illinois and there is no more openly corrupt state than this one. how many governors in jail now? Tony Rezko ring a bell? The treasurer from Broadway Bank (Alexei something)? Daley? we can't even pay our social workers with how broke we are.

if anything.... there are far less skeletons in Romney's closet that we know about than any recent candidate I can think of. Edwards, Obama, Palin, Clinton, Bush....
I trust Obama much more than I trust Romney.  I'm not saying I think there are skeletons in Romney's closet.  I don't think either of these guys has a lot of skeletons, frankly.  Anything Obama has arose during his presidency, so it's really not a fair comparison.  Give Romney 4 years in office and he might hide a couple of bodies in there, too.  But Obama seems like a much more forthright guy, I trust him to generally mean what he says and try to do what he thinks is best for the country.  I trust Romney to do what is best for his political future and say whatever he thinks gives him the best chance of getting elected.  In general I agree with Romney's policies more, though, which makes it a difficult choice.  If I trust Obama to do the things I don't want him to do, is that really better than not being 100% sure what Romney might do?
11/5/2012 4:49 PM
You've shown correlation.  Not causation.  While I believe there is a (weak) case to be made for stimulus, in economic terms this does not show the opportunity cost of other alternatives.  This "recovery" is jobless.  There have been many opportunities to allow markets to flourish, particularly with respect to energy that this administration is completely blocking.  Where the "recovery" is really happening is in places like North Dakota, where jobs follow opportunity and where government is not standing in the way.  Off shore (lack of) drilling, (lack of) drilling on domestic public lands, blocking the Keystone Pipeline, stepping on the necks of coal workers are all things that this administration has contributed to the recovery. 

You want to find real stimulus, go back to the Kennedy and Harding/Coolidge tax cuts.  Look at what happened to treasury receipts and share of the burden.  The economy boomed with the rich paying higher shares in each case.  Same with the Reagan and Bush cuts.

The Keynesian model (of demand-side and goverment spending) works well in theory.  The supply-side model works better - and has in practice.
11/5/2012 4:55 PM
Posted by silentpadna on 11/5/2012 4:49:00 PM (view original):
You've shown correlation.  Not causation.  While I believe there is a (weak) case to be made for stimulus, in economic terms this does not show the opportunity cost of other alternatives.  This "recovery" is jobless.  There have been many opportunities to allow markets to flourish, particularly with respect to energy that this administration is completely blocking.  Where the "recovery" is really happening is in places like North Dakota, where jobs follow opportunity and where government is not standing in the way.  Off shore (lack of) drilling, (lack of) drilling on domestic public lands, blocking the Keystone Pipeline, stepping on the necks of coal workers are all things that this administration has contributed to the recovery. 

You want to find real stimulus, go back to the Kennedy and Harding/Coolidge tax cuts.  Look at what happened to treasury receipts and share of the burden.  The economy boomed with the rich paying higher shares in each case.  Same with the Reagan and Bush cuts.

The Keynesian model (of demand-side and goverment spending) works well in theory.  The supply-side model works better - and has in practice.
What alternatives? We know there was a collapse of demand. We know that tons of capital was sitting idle. We know the stimulus was financed through debt, not tax increases. Any opportunity cost will be in the future, when that debt is paid back.

Tax cuts are a form of stimulus.

The supply side has been thoroughly discredited.

11/5/2012 4:58 PM
Posted by silentpadna on 11/5/2012 3:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/5/2012 2:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 11/5/2012 2:35:00 PM (view original):
What will Obama's tax hikes accomplish?  Will they raise revenues to the treasury?  When broad based rate cuts increase revenue (due to growth), is that a bad thing?  If the rich pay a higher rate and revenues decline, is that the goal? 

What will "hiring 100K more teachers accomplish?  Will it increase our next generation's ability to function and grow?  Will "investing more money"  in education naturally cause that?

What specifically will Obama's taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" accomplish?  Will it help those who are business owners create new jobs?

What is their fair share?  Can anyone put a number on that?

I can't find anything that is clear about how the current president, with his policies, can help the economy grow...

None of that even addresses the huge moral issues I have with his worldview and view of government's role.

The "fair share" rhetoric is what really drives me up a wall.  The numbers just don't back that up.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Whenever I cite a website that shows this information, I usually get castigated by "who does the study", etc.  So instead, I would challenge readers of this thread who have genuine interest to do the following:

1.  Go to the IRS website.
2.  Download tax records for each year going back to 1900.
3.  Find the years where tax rates were substantially raised or lowered.
4.  Find the GDP numbers for each of those years.
5.  Track government treasury revenues for those years.
6.  Look for patterns (hint: they are obvious)

6.  Draw your own conclusions.

The numbers don't lie.

Then ask yourself what "raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires" is really going to accomplish.  My position is that it does accomplish somethng - just not what the proponents publicly claim it does.

This is easy research.  It takes time, but anyone that claims they are interested and knows simple math and how use a spreadsheet can verify this stuff.  The IRS numbers are what they are.  GDP versus rates versus who pays what share along with treasury revenues are facts.  And, as John Adams once said, "facts are stubborn things".

This is a great exercise for people, although it requires some interpretation of the data.  For example, tax cuts in 2002 (for 2003 tax year) led to a reduction in tax revenue and tax increases in 1993 led to an increase in tax revenue (and an increase in GDP).  There's much more at work that tax policy, and many would argue that tax policy has less impact than politicians claim.
11/5/2012 5:12 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/5/2012 4:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 11/5/2012 2:40:00 PM (view original):
And he's had four years to define his economic direction... and provided bupkus.

If your college head coach had four years to build a competitive team, and failed as badly as Obama has, HE'D BE FIRED.  And should be.
Would he be fired if the previous coach had cut all the star players and then another team legally blocked him from signing any big recruits?
You've really drunk all the liberal kool-aid, haven't you? 

Let's say Bush was a crummy economic president, who spent like a drunken sailor.  Obama hasn't changed any of the ruinous policies of the Bush administration.  If anything, he's exacerbated the problem by spending even more money that he isn't collecting. 

Basically, Obama has (economically) been Bush with a tan and a better speechwriter and the benefit of a friendly media.
of 5
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > If You Are Still An Undecided Voter . . .

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.