Barack Osama?

Obama and the Tax Tipping Point
How long before taxpayers are pushed too far?
By ADAM LERRICK
   
What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.

Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income-redistribution formula Democrats have long sought.

Sen. Obama is promising $500 and $1,000 gift-wrapped packets of money in the form of refundable tax credits. These will shift the tax demographics to the tipping point where half of all voters will receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority will gain from tax hikes and more government spending.

In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.

In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.

The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the "very rich" -- the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill -- will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.

What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts -- those educated professionals who applaud the "fairness" of their candidate's tax plans -- will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted. As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income.

Calculating how far society's top earners can be pushed before they stop (or cut back on) producing is difficult. But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners -- at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country.

Other nations have tried the ideology of fairness in the place of incentives and found that reward without work is a recipe for decline. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher took on the unions and slashed taxes to restore growth and jobs in Great Britain. In Germany a few years ago, Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder defied his party's dogma and loosened labor's grip on the economy to end stagnation. And more recently in France, Nicolas Sarkozy was swept to power on a platform of restoring flexibility to the economy.

The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power.

The economic tides will not stand still while Washington experiments with European-type social democracy, even though the dollar's role as the global reserve currency will buy some time. Our trademark competitive advantage will be lost, and once lost, it will be hard to regain. There are too many emerging economies focused on prosperity and not redistribution for the U.S. to easily recapture its role of global economic leader.

Tomorrow's children may come to question why their parents sold their birthright for a mess of "fairness" -- whatever that will signify when jobs are scarce and American opportunity is no longer the envy of the world.

I think the most accurate.. and wisest.. way to look at it is this: Any ideology carried too far is a recipe for disaster. We've seen what a Republican administration run by ideologues brings us. Disaster on almost every front it touched. Would an administration run for 8 years by ideologues of the opposite side be any better? Likely not. But it's more likely that with Obama that won't happen. The Democrats at least have a history of moderation. Witness the Clinton years. Remember where we were when he left office? Can you say 'surplus'? Can you say 'respect internationally'? Can you say 'let's bring the best and the brightest and the most competent into government''? ('Good job, Brownie!')

We know, beyond any shadow of doubt, what a McCain administration would bring us. We've seen who he's become over the last 10 years and we see how he's run his campaign. We see Palin. We see the wild, panicked swings in the face of crisis. We see the sad, compromised figure McCain has become.

Perhaps Obama will be a poor, weak leader and be run by others. Perhaps those others will be the worst of his party. We've been there with Bush for eight years. That's the worst case scenario for Obama and I'd still vote for him if for no other reason than to swing the pendulum back.

But there's reason to believe.. to hope.. that we won't get the worst case scenario. If he's moderately capable he'll be a quantum leap better than the alternative. It's even possible we'll get something extraordinary.

And that seems to be the choice this election. More of the same, hideously run government.. or.. the certainty that, even if Obama isn't a 'transformational' leader, he'll at least to infinitely better than McCain. How can I say 'certainty'? Well, let's face it, the odds that anything could be as bad as what we've seen for 8 years (and what McCain & the republican platform are pledged to continue) are astronomical.

I think the most accurate.. and wisest.. way to look at it is this: Any ideology carried too far is a recipe for disaster. We've seen what a Republican administration run by ideologues brings us. Disaster on almost every front it touched. Would an administration run for 8 years by ideologues of the opposite side be any better? Likely not. But it's more likely that with Obama that won't happen. The Democrats at least have a history of moderation. Witness the Clinton years. Remember where we were when he left office? Can you say 'surplus'? Can you say 'respect internationally'? Can you say 'let's bring the best and the brightest and the most competent into government''? ('Good job, Brownie!')

We know, beyond any shadow of doubt, what a McCain administration would bring us. We've seen who he's become over the last 10 years and we see how he's run his campaign. We see Palin. We see the wild, panicked swings in the face of crisis. We see the sad, compromised figure McCain has become.

Perhaps Obama will be a poor, weak leader and be run by others. Perhaps those others will be the worst of his party. We've been there with Bush for eight years. That's the worst case scenario for Obama and I'd still vote for him if for no other reason than to swing the pendulum back.

But there's reason to believe.. to hope.. that we won't get the worst case scenario. If he's moderately capable he'll be a quantum leap better than the alternative. It's even possible we'll get something extraordinary.

And that seems to be the choice this election. More of the same, hideously run government.. or.. the certainty that, even if Obama isn't a 'transformational' leader, he'll at least to infinitely better than McCain. How can I say 'certainty'? Well, let's face it, the odds that anything could be as bad as what we've seen for 8 years (and what McCain & the republican platform are pledged to continue) are astronomical.

well said.

i agree...well said.

I think the most accurate.. and wisest.. way to look at it is this: Any ideology carried too far is a recipe for disaster. We've seen what a Republican administration run by ideologues brings us. Disaster on almost every front it touched. Would an administration run for 8 years by ideologues of the opposite side be any better? Likely not. But it's more likely that with Obama that won't happen. The Democrats at least have a history of moderation. Witness the Clinton years. Remember where we were when he left office? Can you say 'surplus'? Can you say 'respect internationally'? Can you say 'let's bring the best and the brightest and the most competent into government''? ('Good job, Brownie!')

We know, beyond any shadow of doubt, what a McCain administration would bring us.

The thing is Clintons last 4 or 5 years in congress were with a republican majority congress so he had to work with the other side. He got a lot of things done working with the other side. Dem's are going to try to pass thru their own agenda just like repubs just tried and I dont see any positives in that just like I didnt with that Nightmare Bush

How much could McCain get thru with a democrat majority congress ?

so you think it's better if we're deadlocked in the middle of this crisis?

and palin...if she becomes president...makes bush look like thomas jefferson.

yesterday was another hat trick for the hockey mom...1)for the fourth time, she couldn't say accurately what the vice president does (chilling)...2)gets 150-thousand dollars worth of clothes (sending a message to people scrimping and saving)...3)and scams money from alaska taxpayers for trips with her kids (acting in their official capacities).

i'll be honest.  there's no candidate running in this election i'd rather have sitting on my face than sarah palin.  but her talents end there.

i'll be honest.  there's no candidate running in this election i'd rather have sitting on my face than sarah palin.  but her talents end there.

T. I will be honest too...  there is no candidate running in this election that I would ever like to see in the White Hosue...

so you think it's better if we're deadlocked in the middle of this crisis?

and palin...if she becomes president...makes bush look like thomas jefferson.

yesterday was another hat trick for the hockey mom...1)for the fourth time, she couldn't say accurately what the vice president does (chilling)...2)gets 150-thousand dollars worth of clothes (sending a message to people scrimping and saving)...3)and scams money from alaska taxpayers for trips with her kids (acting in their official capacities).

i'll be honest.  there's no candidate running in this election i'd rather have sitting on my face than sarah palin.  but her talents end there.

hahahah!

Quote from: newsman13 on October 22, 2008, 03:57:15 PM

i'll be honest.  there's no candidate running in this election i'd rather have sitting on my face than sarah palin.  but her talents end there.

T. I will be honest too...  there is no candidate running in this election that I would ever like to see in the White Hosue...

so you think it's better if we're deadlocked in the middle of this crisis?

Yes. Because we wont be deadlocked because McCain has shown the abilty to work with Democrats

from the "you can't make this stuff up" file...AP story.

Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin is scheduled to stump in Beaver, Pennsylvania on Thursday.
The Alaska governor will appear at Beaver Area High School on Thursday evening.


mccain has shown some ability to work with democrats... some.

Be sure to read the "where they are now" at the end !!

 
Here is a quick look into 3 former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall Street.

Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae.  Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae  when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, " Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that "mistakes were made" and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pres sure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years."  Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion.
Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ . The Government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsou nd manner." & amp; amp; nbsp;These charges were made in 2006.  The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits.
Net windfall . . . $190 million!

Tim Howard -  Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. In everyday English - he was cooking the books.  The Government Investigation determined that, "Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,"
On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004.
Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!

Jim Johnson -   A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO.   A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million."   Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. 
Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
 
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES-  Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor
TIM HOWARD -  Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama
JIM JOHNSON -   Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee
 
IF OBAMA PLANS ON CLEANING UP THE MESS - HIS ADVISORS HAVE THE EXPERTISE - THEY MADE THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE.   Would you trust the men who tore Wall Street down to build the New Wall Street ?

What is wrong with our media, Not reporting the facts . . God forbid the liberal media says a bad word about its golden child...


 

Be sure to read the "where they are now" at the end !!

 
Here is a quick look into 3 former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall Street.

Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae.  Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae  when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, " Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that "mistakes were made" and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pres sure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years."  Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion.
Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ . The Government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsou nd manner." & amp; amp; nbsp;These charges were made in 2006.  The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits.
Net windfall . . . $190 million!

Tim Howard -  Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. In everyday English - he was cooking the books.  The Government Investigation determined that, "Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,"
On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004.
Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!

Jim Johnson -   A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO.   A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million."   Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. 
Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
 
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES-  Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor
TIM HOWARD -  Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama
JIM JOHNSON -   Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee
 
IF OBAMA PLANS ON CLEANING UP THE MESS - HIS ADVISORS HAVE THE EXPERTISE - THEY MADE THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE.   Would you trust the men who tore Wall Street down to build the New Wall Street ?

What is wrong with our media, Not reporting the facts . . God forbid the liberal media says a bad word about its golden child...


 

Exactly who is McCain going to put in place to fix the mess?  Phil "mental recession" Gramm?  The woman who started EBay?  I don't think either candidate is going to find economic advisors who are intimate with the financial system and want to work in this kind of environment who haven't participated.  I don't like it either.  But man, why do right-wingers always have to whip out the "liberal media" card?  People talk about the race card, but it doesn't get half as much traction amongst people as the "liberal media" card. 

Never seen so many media tough guys (O'Reilly, et al) talking like media victims.

Nobody can criticize Obama without being called a bigot or rascist, includint the media. Its a joke

Nobody can criticize Obama without being called a bigot or rascist, includint the media. Its a joke

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081023/pl_politico/14835 - what are the candidates hiding?

Sorry, I read anti-Obama stuff fairly often - not as much as "McCain's campaign is off the rails" articles, because from the Palin pick to his his behavior to the McCain/ Palin rallies, there's been more juicy stuff.  Obama's kept it close to the vest.  And there's so much stupid noise that gets brought up around Obama - whether he's a "Muslim" or not, for example - that it is hard to compare their policies.

Which doesn't often happen, except the policy diehards who dig in to the papers that the candidates have their people write (or search for that info on more wonky blogs).  The media always plays up a good story, and they don't analyze the frontrunner, they pick at the one in the rear (see: Kerry in '04).

The "liberal media" whine is an excuse.

PMG, you need to scratch a little below the surface of the garbage you receive before you post it, or you risk being seen as either a fool or a liar.

For those who wish to know the truth about that joke PMG posted (you might read this too, PMG), please go to www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fanniemae.asp 

The article is headed:

Claim: Three former Fannie Mae executives are linked to the Obama campaign as chief economic advisors.

Status: False.

Of course, snopes might be part of that great liberal media cabal and be lying about this as well...

What's next, PMG? That he didn't go to Hawaii to see his ailing grandmother, but rather to cover up evidence that he's not really an american citizen? Yeah.... that one's out there, too.

Please. Wise up. Just a little.

PMG, you need to scratch a little below the surface of the garbage you receive before you post it, or you risk being seen as either a fool or a liar.

For those who wish to know the truth about that joke PMG posted (you might read this too, PMG), please go to www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fanniemae.asp 

The article is headed:

Claim: Three former Fannie Mae executives are linked to the Obama campaign as chief economic advisors.

Status: False.

Of course, snopes might be part of that great liberal media cabal and be lying about this as well...

What's next, PMG? That he didn't go to Hawaii to see his ailing grandmother, but rather to cover up evidence that he's not really an american citizen? Yeah.... that one's out there, too.

Please. Wise up. Just a little.

I heard he brought a stray chihuahua home from Mexico and it ate his cat.  (PS this was after he got drunk in a bar in Ensenada and woke up in a bathtub full of ice sans one of his kidneys),

PMG, you need to scratch a little below the surface of the garbage you receive before you post it, or you risk being seen as either a fool or a liar.

For those who wish to know the truth about that joke PMG posted (you might read this too, PMG), please go to www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fanniemae.asp 

The article is headed:

Claim: Three former Fannie Mae executives are linked to the Obama campaign as chief economic advisors.

Status: False.

Of course, snopes might be part of that great liberal media cabal and be lying about this as well...

What's next, PMG? That he didn't go to Hawaii to see his ailing grandmother, but rather to cover up evidence that he's not really an american citizen? Yeah.... that one's out there, too.

Please. Wise up. Just a little.

While you are right about Raines. . MY BAD..    please don't tell me to wise up...

Above myth aside it is interesting that this would be brought up as it is a disturbing trend not just in this campaign but in the nation in general.  While I find the present McCain campaign strategy of muckraking and lying despicable (and have no doubt that this statement was started by someone at least peripherally involved in his campaign) the fact that prospective voters would just accept it as gospel without question says more about the voters than the candidate.   This is just one of the many reasons that the American people get the candidates that they deserve and the democratic process is such an effing mess.

Nobody can criticize Obama without being called a bigot or rascist, includint the media. Its a joke

Baldi, why do you have a picture of Obama wearing a turban?  Is it to insinuate that there's something wrong with dressing as an Arab or Muslim?  

I really don't think it's true that media that criticize Obama are viewed as racists or bigots...unless they're saying he's Muslim or Arab, in which case they probably are bigots.  Colin Powell had the right idea: what's wrong with being a Muslim or Arab in this country?

what's wrong with being a Muslim or Arab in this country?

Nothing. . unless you are denying it was ever part of your life for polical reasons...