Obama, the Liar-In-Chief

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Our taxes are at historic lows ..."

That makes a great bumper-sticker, because yes there were tax rates in the 70's at one point. But that argument is destroyed when you consider that just about no one paid those taxes, because there were even more shelters then...

AMT for example.............

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Piscator

AMT for example.............

The only fair way to look at it is dollar amounts paid compared to gross income. The average is almost exactly the same today then after the Reagan tax cuts of ~1986. Here are the numbers:

"...calculating all taxes paid by Americans and dividing the sum by the nation's total income. To make this calculation, we turned to the Tax Foundation's annual "Tax Freedom Day" report, which offers calculations of total tax burden going back to 1900. (There was no federal income tax then, but there were state and other taxes.)

The foundation's expected tax burden for 2010 is 26.9 percent, up slightly from the 2009 tax burden of 26.6 percent. (This is not unusual: The tax burden typically falls during recessions, as taxpayers move to lower tax brackets.)

Under Eisenhower, that figure ranged from 24.8 percent to 27.7 percent, with the figure lower than 26.9 percent for seven out of eight years. So by this measurement, the tax burden was lower most of the time under Eisenhower.

Under Reagan, it ranged from 29.2 percent to 31.1 percent, meaning that in all eight years it was higher than the current tax burden under Obama."

PolitiFact | Barack Obama says taxes are lower today than under Reagan, Eisenhower

I can understand if someone still believes that lower tax rates would be better for the economy. However, all the arguments about rates and stuff need to be about actual paid. Same reason why it is bogus for the cons to throw around the 39% corporate tax rate as if it is what companies actually pay.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The only fair way to look at it is dollar amounts paid compared to gross income. .

Great point. It's misleading for consrevatives to point to the corporate rate being high, and it's equally misleading for a liberal to point to higher individual rates decades ago.

Zimmy, are your percentages reflective of all taxes, feredal, state and local? I'm not doubting your numbers, just curious what's in there.

And what worries many of us is the magnitude by which we are overspending, particularly on entitlements. If you give an honest answer to the question "what do tax rates need to be, to pay for these entitlement programs", I think that answer will scare the hell out of people. Liberals (as a group) will not ever address that question, and conservatives (as a group) do a terrible job of getting that message across.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The only fair way to look at it is dollar amounts paid compared to gross income. The average is almost exactly the same today then after the Reagan tax cuts of ~1986. Here are the numbers:

"...calculating all taxes paid by Americans and dividing the sum by the nation's total income. To make this calculation, we turned to the Tax Foundation's annual "Tax Freedom Day" report, which offers calculations of total tax burden going back to 1900. (There was no federal income tax then, but there were state and other taxes.)

The foundation's expected tax burden for 2010 is 26.9 percent, up slightly from the 2009 tax burden of 26.6 percent. (This is not unusual: The tax burden typically falls during recessions, as taxpayers move to lower tax brackets.)

Under Eisenhower, that figure ranged from 24.8 percent to 27.7 percent, with the figure lower than 26.9 percent for seven out of eight years. So by this measurement, the tax burden was lower most of the time under Eisenhower.

Under Reagan, it ranged from 29.2 percent to 31.1 percent, meaning that in all eight years it was higher than the current tax burden under Obama."

PolitiFact | Barack Obama says taxes are lower today than under Reagan, Eisenhower

I can understand if someone still believes that lower tax rates would be better for the economy. However, all the arguments about rates and stuff need to be about actual paid. Same reason why it is bogus for the cons to throw around the 39% corporate tax rate as if it is what companies actually pay.

Obama's statement that "rates" are lower today than under Reagan or Eisenhower are mostly true, but deceptively so, as your linked article notes. And deceptive, as well, in ways that the article doesn't mention. And, in itself, meaningless--Obama doesn't mention that they are not lower than under Bush--begging a so what? His intention, I believe, is to create the "meaning," perception, that he is actually a tax cutter, not a typical tax and spender. That he is fiscally conservative, even more than Eisenhower, or Reagan. The article offers caveats to that perception, one of which you quote. The total tax burden was actually less under Eisenhower than under Obama. So, as you say, if the only fair way to look at it is by total tax burden, then, though rates are lower now, the burden was less under Eisenhower. Also, though rates were much higher (at the top incomes) then, the loopholes were more extravagent, and those rates were not paid, so the comparison of rates is irrelevant. Plus, Reagan began the process of reducing those loopholes, thus was able to lower rates. He began, as Spence likes to say, a vector. He started in office with top rates at 70% and reduced them to 50% and then to 28%. And the current rates that Obama brags about were created by Bush, not him. Though he hasn't yet increased rates, he has, as the article says created or raised some taxes other than income, and some have, conveniently, not kicked in yet, such as the tax penalty for non-insurance. And he wants to raise the "rates" on higher incomes. Unlike Reagan, Obama's vector seems to be trending upward. And is it "fair" when looking at the total burden, that the burden of income taxes, even if the rates are the same, is shifted to fewer payers (nearly half don't pay federal income tax now)?

Whether lower rates would be better for the "economy" or not might be debatable. But if the context of the debate does not include what, ultimately, type of government we wish to have, the big choice that Obama says we are going to make in November, it is all just wonkish tweaking that, if the market is allowed to prevail, and we can survive bad choices, we can recover from if we choose to maintain and re-energize a free market economy directed by minimally encumbered individuals.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

His intention, I believe, is to create the "meaning," perception, that he is actually a tax cutter, not a typical tax and spender. That he is fiscally conservative, even more than Eisenhower, or Reagan.

I beleive his point is that there is a choice between his policies and Mitts. He would close loopholes, slightly raise the rate on the top 1%, and keep middle and lower class taxes low. Romney would slash rates on the top 1%, who are already paying historically low rates. I am pretty sure he isn't trying to say he is more fiscally conservative than Reagan.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I beleive his point is that there is a choice between his policies and Mitts. He would close loopholes, slightly raise the rate on the top 1%, and keep middle and lower class taxes low. Romney would slash rates on the top 1%, who are already paying historically low rates. I am pretty sure he isn't trying to say he is more fiscally conservative than Reagan.

"He would..." is a pretty loaded statement considering that aside from health care, he hasn't done a whole lot domestically to benefit the American people that he said he would do.

Again, aside from health care, his *actions* pretty much make him just George W. Bush 2.0.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

"He would..." is a pretty loaded statement considering that aside from health care, he hasn't done a whole lot domestically to benefit the American people that he said he would do.

Again, aside from health care, his *actions* pretty much make him just George W. Bush 2.0.

He mostly has faced a Republican majority who's mantra is "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by zimmy

He mostly has faced a Republican majority who's mantra is "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

For a President that campaigned on getting rid of the aisle and making sure both sides work together, he did a pretty good job early on of putting up a solid brick wall separating -Ds from -Rs.

Also, you're ignoring the Executive Orders he has made that aren't dependent on approval by that Republican majority.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

He mostly has faced a Republican majority ."

I don't know what kind of math you're doing. For two entire years, Obama had a Democrat majority in the House, and a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate. For far more than 50% of his term, the Republicans literally could do nothing to stop him from doing anything he wanted.

As you said, let's start by working in reality...

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;952687Again, aside from health care, his *actions* pretty much make him just George W. Bush 2.0.[/QUOTE]

Come on...

First and foremost, George Bush is credited with saving the lives of more than one million Africans, thanks to a massive AIDS initiative that he spearheaded (called EPFAR). In a fair world, he gets the Nobel Peace Prize for that. Obama will never do anything that comes close to that.

Bush also created a massive security infastructure from scratch, and in short order. Every single security expert said we would get attacked again, and IMHO opinion he did a decent job keeping us safe.

Obama gets credit (deservedly so) for his aggressive actions in some areas of the war on terror, but all he really did was leave the Bush mechanisms in place, and reap the rewards.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Come on...

First and foremost, George Bush is credited with saving the lives of more than one million Africans, thanks to a massive AIDS initiative that he spearheaded (called EPFAR). In a fair world, he gets the Nobel Peace Prize for that. Obama will never do anything that comes close to that.

Bush also created a massive security infastructure from scratch, and in short order. Every single security expert said we would get attacked again, and IMHO opinion he did a decent job keeping us safe.

Obama gets credit (deservedly so) for his aggressive actions in some areas of the war on terror, but all he really did was leave the Bush mechanisms in place, and reap the rewards.

The first yields no benefit to the American people. I'm sorry but saving 1 million people in Africa from AIDS just means that they're now going to die from famine, war or some other disease. With the number of homeless children and vets that we have in this country, the billions sent overseas for other countries' people is a major sticking point for me.

In the second, it could be argued that Bush's "security infrastructure", along with his Patriot Act could be argued to be the pinnacle point in which we started down the rabbit hole of a totalitarian-like government where once inalienable rights are blatantly infringed upon and every citizen is treated as a terrorist.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Come on...

First and foremost, George Bush is credited with saving the lives of more than one million Africans, thanks to a massive AIDS initiative that he spearheaded (called EPFAR). In a fair world, he gets the Nobel Peace Prize for that. Obama will never do anything that comes close to that.

Some might say pushing and signing a bill that will ensure health care for millions of people comes somewhat close to that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

"He would..." is a pretty loaded statement considering that aside from health care, he hasn't done a whole lot domestically to benefit the American people that he said he would do.

Again, aside from health care, his *actions* pretty much make him just George W. Bush 2.0.

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Campaign Promises that are Promise Kept

Most cons would complain he has done too much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Campaign Promises that are Promise Kept

Most cons would complain he has done too much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You got me, Brown came in when he did, at which point there were 59 Democrats. However...

Does the 59 Democrats include independent Joe Lieberman of CT, a radical left-winger (on everything except the Iraq War) who caucused with the Democrats?

Also, the person who wrote that timeline made a mistake that was probably self-serving. You don't need 60 votes to pass a bill, you need 60 to avoid fillibuster. Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010, after Scott Brown was elected.

I'm not going to say that Republicans haven't prevented him from doing anything, of course they have. But he can't blame them for every single thing he tried to do but failed. During the time he had ultimate control, what did he do? Not very much. Can't blame that on the GOP, right?

But you did catch me putting my foot in my mouth...but so did you, you said Obama has been faced with a "Republican majority" for two years, and that's not true. The Republicans have not even come close to a majority in the Senate since he took office, and have only had a majority in the house for the last 20 months...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I beleive his point is that there is a choice between his policies and Mitts. He would close loopholes, slightly raise the rate on the top 1%, and keep middle and lower class taxes low. Romney would slash rates on the top 1%, who are already paying historically low rates. I am pretty sure he isn't trying to say he is more fiscally conservative than Reagan.

Then why bring in comparisons with Eisenhower and Reagan. Did he compare Mitt's policies to Eisenhower and Reagan? I just read the quote not the context from which it's taken, so don't know. As you must know by now since it's been mentioned here several times and there are articles on the subject, the "rates" under Eisenhower and others up to Reagan were more fiction than fact in terms of what was actually paid. In many cases, what was actually paid was far less than what is paid today. So the "rates" being historically low is a meaningless point.

Mentioning and comparing himself to Eisenhower and Reagan, who have become more widely admired by the public and historians now than in the past, is obviously a slant to make himself appear other than what he is. And it makes Eisenhower and Reagan look other than what they were. I mentioned Reagan's tremendous cuts in rates all-around. And though Obama compares "his" rates favorably to those other two, they are not even his rates, but Bush's, who also cut rates all-around. I mentioned that Obama has already raised some taxes and rates other than income, and that unlike his predecessors, his tax rate "vector" is up, not down.

As far as Mitt's policies, they might well be a corrective to the burden of previous rates that under different, market oriented, policies than Obama, would "stimulate" the economy more than throwing federal money at it.

Again, is this the great difference that we are voting for in Nov.?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Then why bring in comparisons with Eisenhower and Reagan.

He brings it up because there is a loud group of people trying to spin the perception that we have tax rates like Belgium. They are not. The conversation needs to be based around reality.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

He brings it up because there is a loud group of people trying to spin the perception that we have tax rates like Belgium. They are not. The conversation needs to be based around reality.

Not yet, they aren't like Belgium's rates. But unless we make serious changes to entitlement programs, Belgium is going to be looking pretty good. That's future reality.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

He brings it up because there is a loud group of people trying to spin the perception that we have tax rates like Belgium. They are not. The conversation needs to be based around reality.

I am not familiar with this loud group claiming that we have tax rates like Belgium. That is so obviously wrong that it would hardly be worth trying to rebut by bringing up Reagan and Eisenhower. For one, Belgium has a VAT tax. Some (many?) here feel we are headed for such a tax here. Then we would be more like Belgium.

Also, the argument that U.S. corporations pay far less than our high corporate tax rate, as if that makes their tax burden less than foreign companies, is misleading. Some do pay an effective amount below the rate, but some pay close to it. On average, according to a N.Y. Times business section article on May 2, 2011, U.S. companies pay about 25% of their profits in corporate taxes. They pay state and local corp. taxes, as well, that many foreign companies don't pay. What they actually pay in federal taxes, according to the article is a few percentage points higher than those in most other major industrial countries. Nor does the article specify whether the comparison is to what most foreign companies actually pay, or if it is to their tax "rates." Most foreign countries also allow for many exemptions so that when we compare American "effective" rates to foreign tax "rates" it leaves out what foreign effective rates are.

As for our corporations shipping money offshore (transferring profits to countries with lower or non-existent rates) only happens because those countries DO have lower rates.

Again, is this what this coming election is about?