Vote for Obama

[Kung Wu]

Let not forget why that really happened - it was called Government shutdown and budget freeze. Clinton gets to much credit and Obama get to much blame. Look to Congress and the Senate to find who is responsible for our debt.

True, but it happened on his watch. :)

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Are you sure about that? (Here we go again)

Absolutely positive. I'm a CPA. Top marginal rates at that time were upwards of 90%. The top marginal rate today is 35%. We not only have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem.

Edit: I wanted to expand on this when I had more data, but here's a teaser while I gather info. The highest rate was actually during WWII, in 1944-1945, at 94% for incomes over $200k. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (which has since been replaced), had 24 income tax brackets with the lowest rate at 20% and the highest at 91%. The 1954 Code was replaced by the Code of 1986, which in its amended form today has 6 brackets from 10% to 35%. It might take me a day or so to add more meaningful info, ironically I'm working tonight on a bunch of returns that were extended back in March and April, and I have to get those done first before my extracurricular activities... :)

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

And back to abortion, I just can't wrap my mind around willingly ending the life of the unborn for no reason other than you don't want it. There are exceptions that I'd be ok with, but a lot of them are done just because they don't want them. Adoption is a wonderful option for those people. And I wasn't calling all women that have an abortions whores. But there are too many that use it as birth control rather than being responsible. That sickens me.

We are in complete agreement there.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Wow. Should it be the roll of government to ban it? I don't know, should it be the roll of government to ban you killing me?

If you are threatening me with leathal force, I have every right to defend myself. There are exceptions to everything, and there should be.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

This paragraph is so chalk full of inaccuracies I don't know where to begin.

In 2000 the U.S. National Debt was: 5,674,178,209,886 (5.6 Trillion)

In Clinton's BEST year he ran a 260 Billion surplus. (Hats off to him on that). If you take his absolute BEST year and divide it through, it would take over 20 years. Medicare and social security expenses are compounding, while taxes cannot.

His surplus, and anybody else's, is unsustainable until the welfare programs are wound down. This is what is hurting Obama, and is what will plague any other president after Obama, until one takes drastic measures.

What about the prescription drug benefit that Bush passed? On top of his tax cuts which severely cut back government revenue. There's fault on both sides. You can't blame just Obama and Democrats, and it will take more than just Republican policies to end the madness. That's the point that seems to be lost on the right and it's frustrating.

Edit: sorry guys, I guess I posted like 5 times in a row, didn't mean to take over the thread.

[WuDrWu]

If you are threatening me with leathal force, I have every right to defend myself. There are exceptions to everything, and there should be.

Lol.....so if the baby can sneak in a shank, you're cool with it? Got it.

[Kung Wu]

We also better ask ourselves that if right now, when our kids are set to inherit an amount of debt that is impossible for most of us to even imagine, if having the lowest tax rates since the 1950s makes any sense.

Are you sure about that?

Absolutely positive. I'm a CPA. Top marginal rates at that time were upwards of 90%. The top marginal rate today is 35%. We not only have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem.

Regarding your 1950's comment, would you like a glass of water while you contemplate your absolute positivity? Here's a little inconvenient bit of data for you:

Year	Top Marginal Rate
1988	28.00%
1989	28.00%
1990	31.00%
1991	31.00%
1992	31.00%

Some might argue that those Top Marginal Tax Rates in the late 80's were the catalyst for the booming economy that George Bush Sr inherited and tried to screwed up.

Also, you might be surprised at the credentials of many Shockernet posters, so I wouldn't get too excited about throwing the CPA credential around with great weight. It's up to you though, if you believe it helps your arguments by all means go for it.

[Kung Wu]

What about the prescription drug benefit that Bush passed? On top of his tax cuts which severely cut back government revenue. There's fault on both sides. You can't blame just Obama and Democrats, and it will take more than just Republican policies to end the madness. That's the point that seems to be lost on the right and it's frustrating.

Edit: sorry guys, I guess I posted like 5 times in a row, didn't mean to take over the thread.

What does your reply have to do with my fact correction? I didn't blame a single person. I am just calling bullcrap on some "fast and furious" facts that are flying around, and arguments that hinge on those erroneous facts.

[Capitol Shock II]

I just read where a 21 year old woman suggested that welfare receipients shouldn't be allowed to vote until they have a job. How about extending that to anyone on a Federal handout? She suggests that it's a conflict of interest and I happen to agree. It would prevent politicians from becoming crack dealers.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Lol.....so if the baby can sneak in a shank, you're cool with it? Got it.

Not exactly where I was going with that, but you made me laugh. :eagerness:

One of my favorite classes at WSU back in the day was Ethics. It changed my perspective on many things in life, and the principles I learned in that class I still use today. Ethical decisions can be tough because rarely if ever can you find one that's black and white. Usually it's not right vs. wrong (those are easy), it's right vs. right, or unfortunately a lot of the times, wrong vs. wrong and you have to make the choice that is the lesser of the two evils. These gray areas of right vs. right or wrong vs. wrong are when it can be very easy for others to play Monday morning quarterback and second guess the decisions of those who faced those difficult circumstances. God forbid you ever have to face anything like that, but when you do or if you already have, it's not my place to judge you or your decision and I hope to God I don't my friends.

[Smooth007]

I just read where a 21 year old woman suggested that welfare receipients shouldn't be allowed to vote until they have a job. How about extending that to anyone on a Federal handout? She suggests that it's a conflict of interest and I happen to agree. It would prevent politicians from becoming crack dealers.

It is not anymore of a conflict of interest than romney paying 13.9% tax rate in 2010 while earning more than 22 million and pushing for tax cuts for the 1%. Estate tax, sure repel it, it only favors the ultra wealthy. Lower the top tax rate, great for the top 1%. Lower Medicare benefits, it only hurts the lower class. Even the Yankees in baseball are not that ruthless.

[WuDrWu]

The argument about tax rates on the wealthy is nothing more than a paper tiger. The problem is spending, not revenue.

FIX the spending, and I believe a plurality of the "evil 1%ers" will agree that taxes should go up to pay down the debt. HOWEVER, not increasing taxes on the "rich" isn't taking 1 red cent from a poor person. It's nothing less than class warfare. It's disingenuous and does nothing to fix the problem.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Regarding your 1950's comment, would you like a glass of water while you contemplate your absolute positivity? Here's a little inconvenient bit of data for you:

Year	Top Marginal Rate
1988	28.00%
1989	28.00%
1990	31.00%
1991	31.00%
1992	31.00%

Some might argue that those Top Marginal Tax Rates in the late 80's were the catalyst for the booming economy that George Bush Sr inherited and tried to screwed up.

Also, you might be surprised at the credentials of many Shockernet posters, so I wouldn't get too excited about throwing the CPA credential around with great weight. It's up to you though, if you believe it helps your arguments by all means go for it.

Alright, I think you won that debate Mr. Wu. This crow needs salt!! Tax rates do fluctuate at the whims of our politicans, as they should. More than being factually incorrect, I think the problem here is my inability to articulate the English language in an effective manner. When I say, "lowest tax rates since the 1950s," well obviously that's screwed up because I'm comparing a period of an all-time high to a period of a historical low. That sentence would only make sense if the 1950s had ultra low rates, and in between we had a period of ultra high rates. I know what I was trying to say, and that wasn't it. So let me try this again, and if this doesn't work I may want to consider taking some remedial writing classes...

Here we go, ahem...We also better ask ourselves that if right now, when our kids are set to inherit an amount of debt that is impossible for most of us to even imagine, if having the lowest low marginal tax rate since 1941, some of the lowest overall marginal rates in modern history, and with one exception the lowest total effective rate since the 1950s makes any sense.

Hopefully that makes more sense. Oh, and I'm not at all suprised by any of the credentials of you guys. Whether you're a doctor, a lawyer, a sheet metal worker, a teacher, a small business owner, etc, there's honor in whatever work you've chosen to do. My comment about my line of work was not meant to amaze you with my background or brilliance (more like the lack thereof), so please don't take it as such. There's a lot of you on this board that are smarter and more experienced than me, that's for sure.

[WuDrWu]

The Estate Tax has to be the most insane and punitive tax there is and it should be eliminated forever. The same money shouldn't be taxed over and over, and there is no way the government is entitled to take away someone's inheritance. It's indefensible.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

What does your reply have to do with my fact correction? I didn't blame a single person. I am just calling bullcrap on some "fast and furious" facts that are flying around, and arguments that hinge on those erroneous facts.

I might have replied to the wrong post in my scramble to make some points. Sorry for the confusion. Being one of the few left-leaning posters on a Kansas message board is exhausting!! Anyway, you're right, there's a lot of "fast and furious" facts flying around.