Out of the Past

I believe they need to reach out to Hispanics, a minority which is going to grow exponentially during the next decade. Most of Hispanics tend to be moderate conservatives. How do you reach them, without pissing off the anti-immigration hawks of the right? I think the ceding of core positions to try to reach certain groups is a losing proposition. If Hispanics stand for conservarive principles then welcome them. If they don't, then don't move to the left to bring them in.

I don't think social issues played a role in this election. Fiscal policy is what wounded the GOP. They need to stand firm for balanced budgets and reduced government spending and against entitlement programs. In other words, they need to move to the right on fiscal policy. They also need to be pro business which means being pro job creation. McCain sounded like a Democrat every time he railed against "corporate greed' in Wall Street.

Rick Sanchez is getting owned right now by Joe the Plumber. Can't wait till it's on youtube...Sanchez is such a f***ing idiot, go back on channel 7 and report on celebrities,douche. Here it is..

http://www.tarrance.com/files/Final-ballot...-prediction.pdf The final Battleground poll has is Obama winning 50.2% to 48.3%. Battleground was the best pollster in most of the past few elections and if the overall margin is only 1.9% I think McCain has a decent chance of winning the Electoral College.

Could I get some insight? I hear the candidates discussing corporate taxes and whether or not they are driving companies away from the US and overseas. In my opinion companies are probably more enticed to move overseas because of drastically cheaper labor. Is it both? Outsourcing was a big issue in '04 with Kerry calling corporations that outsourced "Benedict Arnold corporations" but I don't think it's a big issue this time. You outsource to take advantage of lower expenses, of which taxes is one of them, but it's not the one that offers the most savings.

My guess (or hope) is that Obama is overpolling a bit (I think he did in the primaries) and that McCain will get most of the undecideds. If that happens McCain could win all thse states. Final Mason-Dixon battleground numbers: Florida: Obama 47, McCain 45, Undecided 7 Nevada: Obama 47, McCain 43, Undecided 8 Pennsylvania: Obama 47, McCain 43, Undecided 9 Ohio: McCain 47, Obama 45, Undecided 6 North Carolina: McCain 49, Obama 46, Undecided 5 I am not voting for Obama so this is not wishfull thinking on my part the poll you cite of for PA most likely is an outlier . Every other poll shows Obama up between 7-10 points in PA . I dont think he will win by 7-10 but probably 2-5 point victory is probably what will happen in PA. I think Pennsylvania is the iffiest. If he loses it but wins Virginia and Colorado he would still win. Final Mason-Dixon battleground numbers: Colorado: Obama 49, McCain 44, Undecided 4 Virginia: Obama 47, McCain 44, Undecided 9

My guess (or hope) is that Obama is overpolling a bit (I think he did in the primaries) and that McCain will get most of the undecideds. If that happens McCain could win all thse states. Final Mason-Dixon battleground numbers: Florida: Obama 47, McCain 45, Undecided 7 Nevada: Obama 47, McCain 43, Undecided 8 Pennsylvania: Obama 47, McCain 43, Undecided 9 Ohio: McCain 47, Obama 45, Undecided 6 North Carolina: McCain 49, Obama 46, Undecided 5

Electoral Votes: McCain - 273 Obama - 265 Popular Vote: Obama - 50% McCain - 48% Senate: Democrats pick-up 8 seats House: Democrats pick-up 24 seats

About those pesky "corporate taxes"... http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/...al-report-says/ PNC Could Save Billions in Taxes on National City Deal, Report Says October 30, 2008, 7:02 am PNC Financial Services Group could save billions of dollars in federal taxes from its purchase last week of National City, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing tax experts. The report follows an earlier article by The New York Times's Eric Dash, which noted that PNC could save as much as $6 billion because of a recent change to the tax code. The tax benefit would stem from a ruling in September by the Internal Revenue Service, which lifted the limit on the amount of a purchasing bank's taxable income that a target bank's losses can offset. That allows the buyer of a bank to get immediate tax benefits instead of having to do so over several years. Robert Willens, an independent corporate tax analyst based in New York, estimated the tax savings to PNC could reach as high as $5.1 billion, according to The Journal. The newspaper quoted PNC's Chief Financial Officer Richard Johnson as saying that $5.1 billion figure was too high. On Friday, PNC agreed to acquire Ohio-based National City in a government-supported $5.6 billion and created the No.5 U.S. bank by deposits. And here's a quote in Richard Mellon Scaife's personal rag about it: "It's conceivable PNC would not have to pay federal income taxes -- none -- for the next six years," said Robert Willens, a corporate tax analyst in New York. So yeah, I'm not moved at all. So the acquirer can use the taxable losses they just purchased from the acquiree to offset it's taxable income. That seems fair to me. What is the problem here?

You can't talk about cutting taxes without cutting spending. Cut ALL subsidies (they like to call them "investments") to businesses and then we can see about lowering their taxes. But you can't just say "let's cut their taxes" while still giving them all this money on the other hand. I'm not arguing that higher taxes are good, only that the money we give to big business is much more of the problem than the money we take away. I agree, the common folk always bear the burden of higher taxes. But whether or not taxes are higher, it's the spending that is the problem, and what drives up taxes. I agree completely. I agree for the most part however I think high taxes and wasteful spending are two different problems.

While I agree the government should not try to influence corporate behavior with special interest corporate tax breaks and subsidies (i.e. wind and solar energy tax breaks) even with all these special interest tax breaks our corporations pay 39% in incoem taxes. That's way too much and puts us at a competitive disadvantage in a global market.

McCain wants to lower corporate taxes while Obama does not. This video does a nice job of explaining how corporatre taxes have an adverse impact on our economy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-QjV3MEPq8

Another WOW day. The S&P lost 4% the last 10 minutes.

Every business can deduct depreciation, business trips and business dinners. The marginal tax rate which is the rate you'll pay on the next incremental dollar you earn could well be over 50% depending on what it is he means when he says he'll apply the payroll tax on income over $250k.

I think the government ought to provide a certain foundation which should lead to permanent and stable economic growth and social development - in other words, education, infrastructure, etc. That requires money - it ain't free, and neither prinmemo nor Godfather is going to give their money for the development of roads and bridges around the country and the building of public schools for our children (or funding of universities). In other words, this can only be done if the government collects taxes - otherwise it is too chaotic. Now, having said that, there is the question of how much you tax people. I think that people that are doing well (making a lot of money and already have substantial assets) should pay a higher proportion of their incomes than poorer people because poorer people use a very large percentage of their income on essentials (food, housing, etc.). In other words, we (the top 10 percent of income earners) have a lot more disposible income than someone making $25K. As a result, we can bear a little more of the burden than someone making next to nothing. Don't you think Obama's top rate of 50% (*) on small business owners would lead to a reduction in investment and risk taking which equals fewer jobs? (*) includes payroll tax. 1) Define small business. 2) Clarify whether you mean it will be 50% after some level of profit. I'll give you my answer once you clarify those two points. By small business owner I mean a sole proprietor or a partner of a partnership. The 50% rate is the top rate which I understand is income over $250k. I should have left the "small" out of the question because I think the tax increase would impact the behavior of the "small" and the "not so small" business owner in similar ways. By small business owner I tend to think of 1) the size of the enterprise in terms of employees and 2) revenues and profit, so if you're a sole propietor making $100M per year then I wouldn't call that person a "small business owner". I am not sure the 50% percent rate is correct - the top marginal rate under Obama's plan will go to 39%, not 50%. And the top marginal rate will only go in effect after you reach a certain level of profits - you won't be at the top rate at $250K in profits. In addition, I know you're an accountant so you know this, but the tax code provides (and will continue to provide under Obama) substantial write-offs for small businesses. I know a certain small business owner with revenues exceeding $650K with a take home of about $350K who's "taxable income" is about $190K. To me, a small business owner making $250K in taxable income is taking home some serious dough. If they're not, they need a better accountant. In addition, I believe Obama's plan specifically provides for tax cuts for small and start up businesses who earn up to a certain amount (much higher than $250K). I recognize that the small business is the driving force behind the economy and that we should continue to provide a low tax environment for those business to grow, prosper, and provide jobs. The way I came up with the 50% top tax rate for business owners is by taking the 39.6% top income tax rate under Clinton and adding the 15.3% payroll tax rate for the self employed given that he would impose the payroll tax on income over $250k. I'm not sure if he would apply the entire 15.3%. The write-offs for a business owner you mentioned are expenses same as expenses that every business is allowed to deduct. People confuse revenues and profit all the time. Even Obama did it the other day. If the top tax rate is 50% or anything close to that I think it would obviosuly restrict investment and risk taking and reduce jobs. I would be far more willing to risk a buck to take home 70% of any potential profit compared to only taking home 50% of the profit.

Opportunities. Whether you make it or not depends on YOU. Far from the truth. Minorities in particular do not have all of the opportunities that others might have. It's just a sad fact of this country. The same goes for women, who are only making 60-70% or so on average as men are, and they are still having difficulties getting into the highest reaches of the political and business world, even after all this time. We still have a ways to go. Inequities in opportunities between men and women are nonexistent. The fact is men and women who perform the same work earn the same salary. Women on the average earn less than men because of personal choices and not because of inequities in opportunities or pay. There are still some inequities with minorities but even with the added hurdles their success depends on them. What FutureGM forgot to mention is that even more than minorities and women, the people that have the hardest time in this country are the poor. A rich black person or woman has a lot more chances than a poor person of any ethnic group. We tend to ignore this very often, but from what I've seen growing up in a working class family is that I relate much more to a working class black person or white person than a high class hispanic. While I agree the rich have more opportunities I think the poor have plenty of opportunities to succeed and if they don't I think the decisions they made throughout their lives are the primary cause for the lack of success as opposed to opportunities denied. This is not a 3rd world country where you're destined to a miserable life (in economic terms) if you were born poor.

The tax is on the profits so the $100,000 in your example.

More pain. The last 26 trading days the S&P has lost 33%.

I think the government ought to provide a certain foundation which should lead to permanent and stable economic growth and social development - in other words, education, infrastructure, etc. That requires money - it ain't free, and neither prinmemo nor Godfather is going to give their money for the development of roads and bridges around the country and the building of public schools for our children (or funding of universities). In other words, this can only be done if the government collects taxes - otherwise it is too chaotic. Now, having said that, there is the question of how much you tax people. I think that people that are doing well (making a lot of money and already have substantial assets) should pay a higher proportion of their incomes than poorer people because poorer people use a very large percentage of their income on essentials (food, housing, etc.). In other words, we (the top 10 percent of income earners) have a lot more disposible income than someone making $25K. As a result, we can bear a little more of the burden than someone making next to nothing. Don't you think Obama's top rate of 50% (*) on small business owners would lead to a reduction in investment and risk taking which equals fewer jobs? (*) includes payroll tax. 1) Define small business. 2) Clarify whether you mean it will be 50% after some level of profit. I'll give you my answer once you clarify those two points. By small business owner I mean a sole proprietor or a partner of a partnership. The 50% rate is the top rate which I understand is income over $250k. I should have left the "small" out of the question because I think the tax increase would impact the behavior of the "small" and the "not so small" business owner in similar ways.

I think the government ought to provide a certain foundation which should lead to permanent and stable economic growth and social development - in other words, education, infrastructure, etc. That requires money - it ain't free, and neither prinmemo nor Godfather is going to give their money for the development of roads and bridges around the country and the building of public schools for our children (or funding of universities). In other words, this can only be done if the government collects taxes - otherwise it is too chaotic. Now, having said that, there is the question of how much you tax people. I think that people that are doing well (making a lot of money and already have substantial assets) should pay a higher proportion of their incomes than poorer people because poorer people use a very large percentage of their income on essentials (food, housing, etc.). In other words, we (the top 10 percent of income earners) have a lot more disposible income than someone making $25K. As a result, we can bear a little more of the burden than someone making next to nothing. Don't you think Obama's top rate of 50% (*) on small business owners would lead to a reduction in investment and risk taking which equals fewer jobs? (*) includes payroll tax.

Come on. They're not ACTUALLY paying 35% of their income in taxes, not if they know how to do their taxes properly. There are tons of loopholes that (especially) corporations use to keep their money out of the hands of the US government. These people aren't stupid. They know how to keep their taxes as low as possible by gaming the system. They'll be perfectly fine. Come on, Big Bad Exxon paid 41% in income taxes the last three years.

Opportunities. Whether you make it or not depends on YOU. Far from the truth. Minorities in particular do not have all of the opportunities that others might have. It's just a sad fact of this country. The same goes for women, who are only making 60-70% or so on average as men are, and they are still having difficulties getting into the highest reaches of the political and business world, even after all this time. We still have a ways to go. Inequities in opportunities between men and women are nonexistent. The fact is men and women who perform the same work earn the same salary. Women on the average earn less than men because of personal choices and not because of inequities in opportunities or pay. There are still some inequities with minorities but even with the added hurdles their success depends on them.

Remember you don't get to keep all of the $250k.. with Obama you would keep less than half of it.

Your question sort of goes all over the place. It seems to start out as a question related to Obama's tax policy, but then diverges to a question on tax policy all together, ie that isn't it better for people to keep their own tax money. At the outset, your argument is a non-sequitor. the figure you present should not have any relevance because taxes in general never look good when framed in the context of raw amount no matter if the policy if progressive or flat percentage tax. This should not be an argument against a specific tax policy unless it is an argument against taxes altogether or in favor of a flat non-percentage tax. For example, if I propose a 10% income tax rate, most people would be fine with that. But if someone came around and said "if I make 10 million, I lose 1 million of my dollars! I should be able to use that money as I wish." That would be a criticism of taxes altogether, not relative merit of an individual tax plan. So in that sense, your argument says nothing about Obama's plan. If that's your argument, against percentage based taxes all together, feel free to make that argument. But it's not a valid criticism of Obama's tax plan. Why is it not a valid argument against Obama's tax plan just because it attacks all tax policies? Obama's tax plan calls for an extra amount of money to be paid by certain people, I think that is the argument...would you be comfortable paying X amount of extra dollars to the government if you were a successful business person who made 250k a year in addition to the large sum you already pay? Also, where do you get your figures from? The current top tax rate is 35%, meaning you would pay $87,500 in taxes. Under Obama, you pay 39%, or $97,500, so a $10,000 increase. Now the way I see it, if you make $250k under Obama, after taxes, you have $152,500. If you make $50,000, under Obama, after taxes, you have $37,500 after taxes plus $500 in a tax break, so leaving you with $38,000. So as a person who makes $250k, would I like to keep the additional $10k? Of course. But as a person making $50k, would I also like to keep my $12,500? Absolutely. Fortunately, our tax policy is not based on selfish motives. It's based on who can afford to handle more of the tax burden. So in reality, I would always like to be someone who ends up with $152,500 after taxes than someone who has $38,000 after taxes. I would rather be someone who has no problem paying bills, has a big screen TV, drives a nice reliable car, goes out to eat where I want, and lives comfortably, then someone who has car that breaks down, has to turn off the heat because the bill is too high, and has a 19in crappy tv with no HBO. So if I get to choose, comparitively speaking, Obama's tax's plan isn't the worst thing in the world for me. Obama would also apply the payroll tax on incomes over $250k so that would be another $15k from someone making $250k.

Opportunities. Whether you make it or not depends on YOU.