I wake up in the middle of the night worrying about the US economy if Obama wins the election. Beneath Obama's flowery rhetoric lies a dangerous economic plan that will wreak havoc on the American economy.
Obama plans to return to the failed policies of high taxation coupled with an expansion of government spending.
Worse, Obama says he is absolutely committed to almost doubling the capital gains rate - something he will easily accomplish with a Democrat Congress.
In the coming months - when investors realize that Obama will raise the cap gains rate - there could be a stampede of asset sales as investors rush to take their profits now to avoid Obama's doubling of the tax rates next year.
Obama makes no bones about his plans to go on a tax rampage. Not only would he increase the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to as much as 28 percent, he wants to allow the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which effectively raises taxes on Americans by tens of billions of dollars.
He also wants to do away with the $102,000 FICA payroll tax cap, which means anyone making over $102,000 would pay an additional 7 percent in taxes on earned income.
11 comments:
I would omit the word "economy" from the title of this posting.
Perhaps something to worry about is a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress. Where would the balance be.
I must agree. This penchant for accusing the rich of not paying their fair share is unbelievable audacity.
97% of all taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners already.
86% of all taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners.
39% of all taxes are paid by the top 1% or income earners.
Obama thinks that the rich are not paying their fair share? This is tired old liberal dogma, but facts don't matter when you have more fleecing to do!
It has been demonstrated many times that reducing taxes increases revenue to the treasury via increase economic activity. So one has to wonder. Why the insistence on raising taxes? Obama's (and Dems in general) goal is not to increase revenue, but to punish the rich. The 'basic fairness' argument holds no water as demonstrated the the stats above.
Re: Isabelle
The balance is provided by the people in elections. If the people put one party in power, so be it, it is the voice of the people.
The Democrats complained bitterly about that very thing when Republicans ran everything. They demanded a power sharing arrangement with the Republicans, which the Republicans stupidly gave them. Nothing good was accomplished. When the reverse situation happened and the Dems had a chance to give the Republicans equal power, they said "take a hike." Good for the Dems, I think the Republicans should have done the same.
Dems want to increase taxes so they can make bigger government. They want more programs and more control and they have to have more money to do it. Bigger is not always better.
OK. As if our economy and financial situation has improved under conservative Republican administration for 8 years and control of congress for 6 years! I am sure that you will claim that somehow it is the fault of Democrats.
So let's imagine this scenario: McCain wins, Republicans surprise and win both chambers. We remain in Iraq and Afghanistan for the foreseeable and unforeseeable future, taxes are not raised, the deficit continues to grow as is has for the previous EIGHT years (because no slow trickle down effect is going to raise enough money via economic growth to pay for TWO wars and repayment of our debt.)
I don't know that Obama and the Dems can reverse our direction, but I have NO faith in the Republicans to do it given the past eight years.
I agree with Alan. Balance Smalance. There is no balance in Utah at all. Republicans run it their way and we are amongst the most highly taxed citizens in the US. Love those Republican principles of lower taxation!
Doug is right about not only the past eight years, but it extends nearly 14 years to 1994 when the Republicans took back the House. McCain is right to say that the Republicans came to power to change government, but government changed them. I am hugely disappointed by Republicans not following through on their convictions. I don't believe it is a failure of conservatism, it is a failure of the Republican party to faithfully implement those principles. I don't know whether Dems will change things, but I doubt it because I don't agree with their principles and also given the previous 50 years of Dem congressional rule. The national debt was given to us primarily by the Democrats and then exacerbated by the Republicans. My disappointment in my government is considerable.
Okay. I see the need now. The time is right. I announce my candidacy for 2012. Wortham '12
I will be your running mate, Brian.
Wortham/Wortham 2012, that would be true bi-partisanship, except of course, the first Wortham would be me!
Seriously though, I know how Alan is feeling. Most of America is thinking like that. However, Americans are not taking their share of the blame as voters and citizens. Once an incumbent is in, she/he is in: it is rare that we actually 'throw the bums out'. Most incumbents would lose as punishment for a job poorly done this elections cycle, but they won't I bet. We'll see. At least the Utah County (and beyond) Republicans were smart enough to oust Cannon in Convention. I don't know anything about his replacement. Alan, do you like him/her?
Him. Jason Chaffets, former BYU place kicker. I voted for him because he was a place kicker. NOT!
I voted for him because he wasn't Cannon. Most Utah County Republicans have no idea what he will do. He may be worse than Cannon (if that is possible). The main reason why Cannon lost was low turnout (favoring the challenger) and the fact that Cannon wasn't conservative enough.
Can I at least get a cabinet position? Secretary of Spin and Demagoguery will be fine.
Informative. Thanks, Alan.
Post a Comment