Wrong, increased capital gains taxes decreases investment resulting in a net loss of tax revenue.

Actually the tax cuts have spurred the economic growth we've been experiencing. It is the housing bust and credit crisis, along with higher energy costs that have slowed the economy of late.

Oh my ears are listening, as I have a mortgage, and a stock portfolio. But what I can tell you the Bush tax cuts have brought me are higher taxes. My federal tax burden is minimal, compared to my state, local and property taxes, which have all risen substantially since Bush took office. I pay a higher state and city income tax than I do federal income tax. And my property taxes have doubled since 2001.

McCain proposes to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and further reduce federal taxes and reduce the size of government (though we've heard that one before). Even if McCain brought my federal taxes down to zero, my state and local taxes would surely go up, way up.

__________________
Big Number of 2008
8,217,246
Obama's Margin of Victory

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

-Thomas Jefferson

Still believing in that that old tale, are you? Investing in what? You might want to look at manufacturing jobs lost over the past several years.

Well, that's your view. There are many other factors which spurred the surge in our economy, more so than the tax cuts.

This is a good article to review when pinning the economy on taxes:

THE CAPITAL GAINS AND DIVIDEND TAX CUTS AND THE ECONOMY

The economy was predicted to improve without the tax cuts.

__________________
Big Number of 2008
8,217,246
Obama's Margin of Victory

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

-Thomas Jefferson

That's because as federal tax revenue doesn't expand revenue sharing with states drops proportionally. Our county is one of many who will lose federal revenue sharing payments for rural schools and a host of other federal revenue sharing programs that constitute a major portion of our operating budget. What was formerly a strong conservative county has done a political 180 due to the Iraq War and severely reduced federal revenue sharing.

Oreo, your link didn't work.

I don't doubt that. But if the figures you quoted are correct (and you say you don't know, so maybe they aren't -- we'll see when you find them) then the tax increase from that change would have fallen exclusively on upper-income people, especially on those who owned more than one home.

Well, the biggest it could possibly result in, if we're talking about a $3,000 reduction in the mortgage deduction cap, is $3,000 x the tax rate for whatever bracket the person is in. That would be $600 for a 20% bracket. As the discussion above brought out, though, not many homeowners would be hit anything like that hard.

Incidentally, while trying to research this, I also discovered that Carter passed an income tax reduction in 1978. While you're evaluating his presidency and the reasons for the trouble he faced, you might bear that in mind as well. There's no doubt that his presidency saw a lot of economic troubles, but the reflexive tendency to blame the person on watch for such things is almost always wrong.

So you blame the federal government for what your home state taxes are? Every single state in this union taxes differently. Thankfully, I live in a state hat insists on balancing it's own budget every year. Property taxes, take up with your local county government. The federal government does not asess the value of your property, your county does.

Why should the rest of us have to flip the bill for you & your state? Is it that you live in an expensive area of this country, where property taxes are higher than average? If you don't like it, move! Could it be, that YOUR state spends more than what it takes it? Doesn't YOUR complaint have something to do with your STATE legislature, govenor, & county officials--& not the federal government?

You're just another person who feels that the federal government should be responsible for everything, including wipeing your nose.

I noticed something about your posts. You continually goggle everything, which is O.K. But, I have yet to hear you speak from personal experience, which brings into question again, exactly how old you really are?

Someone born in 1956 would know much more about Viet Nam than you did, & someone who voted for Jimmy Carter, would also be very well aware of what was happening in the economy. They would have personal experience, which you do not appear to have.

The only Americans who did not suffer under the Carter adminstration were people who worked for the government, school teachers & public paid servants--PERIOD. Plus the U.S congress gave themselves a good raise. Carter did lower the bar on the amount of mortage interest one could deduct on their homes, which clobbered the poor & middle class in this country. THAT IS FACT! Whether or not you can google it up. He came very close to eliminating it all together. After thinking about it, yes 6 k to 3 k seems a little high for that economic era, it would have had to have been lower. But it was done. Which is a tax increase.

O.K. So now you can prove something to me. I don't want anyone else to answer this question for you, so other posters don't.

What was Jimmy Carters main campaign theme, in one single sentence that was burned into every ones mind, "that was old enough to vote"? You can try & google this one, but I doubt you'll find it.

If you can answer that one, I may believe your age. If not, then I congratulate you for being a young person who is interested in politics, & would like to debate more with you.

However, I am getting a little tired of the partisan B.S. 99% of this nation that survived Jimmy Carter, including democrats who voted for him, will not defend his policies to this day. Either domestic policy or foreign policy. You appear to be his knight in shining armor.

Will you also defend Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas?

I'd say you are victim of the lack of spending restraint amongst your own, in your state, I don't see how Bushs tax cuts would be held accountable for a rise in your state taxs. Many states like mine have enjoyed higher tax revenue and have pissed it way. Now that we are sliding into a recession and all the bond issues they thought they could by virtue of riding the crest of the wave, and increased spending will suffer, due to lack of intake to sppt. them, they will cry that its the feds fault, no, if they had watched their spending while times were good they would not have to take the pipe, or that is make you take the pipe, well me too.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

I'm no economist, but I am having difficulty seeing how this country is going to remain functional much longer, running a deficit but not raising taxes. I hear lots of tortured, convoluted explanations on the news and other places, but nothing that makes much sense to me.

Maybe I am just too simplistic in thinking of things like a checkbook. I don't think there's anything magical to cutting spending and raising taxes to get things back in order. Just like losing weight, it's not going to be easy or fun, but it's not rocket surgery.

There's a piper to be paid for years of hyper-inflated prosperity, and I applaud the realism of owning up to that unpleasant fact.

__________________
"My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right." - Ashleigh Brilliant(?)
(Voting for None Of The Above, so far...)

Well, while I'm googling (not goggling) everything, here's one more:

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You should not confuse disagreement with your ideology with lack of knowledge. I know a great deal about Vietnam, although since I did not serve in the military in the war, it's true that I lack personal experience of it. (And yes, I was too young to do so. By one year.) But in any case, I disagree with your ideology BECAUSE I know a great deal about it. And what have I actually said? That Hanoi could not have been considering "surrender" because we weren't even asking for it, that we didn't just "walk away" but got a peace treaty containing all the terms we were asking; that contrary to your claim of repeated broken promises to get us out of the war only one president actually promised to get us out of the war and broke that promise (Nixon in 1968), and even he kept his promise eventually; and that the Domino Theory was proven false by what happened after Vietnam fell. All of these things are true.

And as for Carter, I already stated I didn't become a homeowner until 1984, by which time Carter was no longer president. I was 20 years old, and still in college, when he was elected. Incidentally, the interest rate on my mortgage in '84 was 11.83%, not as bad as the figures you quoted but still terrible by today's standards.

Our disagreement doesn't involve what happened to the economy during those years, only what caused it. You are -- I think reflexively and unthinkingly -- blaming Carter's policies for all that. There are a few exceptions with short-term and non-lasting effects, but most economic policies take a few years to bear fruit, whether wholesome or poisonous. For example, NAFTA and other ill-advised free trade agreements, which were negotiated under Bill Clinton, did not lead to economic problems of any serious nature until early in the Bush administration. It's natural for someone operating reflexively and unthinkingly to blame Bush for that downturn, but it was actually more Clinton's fault than Bush's. (There, you see? I can do that kind of analysis even-handedly.)

The first part is fact; the result you're claiming is nonsense. First of all, nobody who owns a home should be called "poor," and secondly as I've already demonstrated, most of the middle class were unaffected by that lowering of deductible mortgage interest, and those who were affected by it were well-off enough that a tax bite that small wasn't going to "clobber" them.

In addition to the fact that trying to call me a liar w/r/t my age is an argumentum ad hominem, a logical fallacy, it's also true that personal experiences, while of some value, can give one a distorted picture if that's all you're relying on. It's a starting point, but you need to do some research in order to understand the big picture, and you can do that without the personal experiences almost as easily as with them.

The main thing I remember from Carter's presidential run was him saying repeatedly, "I will never lie to you." I don't know if that was his main theme or not; it was a long time ago.

In any case, whether you believe me or not about my age is quite irrelevant; you can come to any conclusions you like, and frankly your attempt to divert the discussion to me instead of the arguments I'm presenting is more amusing than irritating. I do, however, take it as a sign that you aren't able to respond to the arguments I'm presenting.

You can't blame that on Bush, while your property taxes of increased mine have decreased. If you are in the top 1 to 5% in income, yes your income taxes have risen. But the demorats want to raise them even more. If congress doesn't make the Bush tax cuts permanent then you will be paying even more in taxes without even raising taxes. But I can assure you if democrat is elected to president you will be paying even more in taxes, across the board.

Before the Bush tax cuts states budgets were in the red and experiencing shortages, but since many states are now running surpluses. It's proof that reducing taxes spurs economic growth by encourgaing investment, which then causes a net increase in tax revenue for the federal and state governments.

Yeah--you did it: I will never lie to you. That's correct. Now I feel that I am debating with someone around my age, & not a teenager.

You mentioned that anyone who owns a home can't be considered poor. You might want to talk to several thousand people who lived in New Orleans. They owned their homes, but according to our contractors who are currently working the area, they could not afford homeowner insurance. Henceforth, very little progress going on down there. They are very poor, & property owners to boot.

I don't blame Presidents for the economies they inherit. Carter inherited Nixon, who put a price freeze on everything, thereby driving inflation forces.

However, I do blame Presidents for how they respond to poor economies. Carter did not respond to a weakening economy. He felt that Americans had over-spent, his statements were to tighten belts, turn down the heat, & make sure to eat left-overs. While at the same time, his aids & congress were getting very nice raises.

Carters fundamental misunderstanding of the economy was: If Americans do not work, they don't pay taxes, & they don't spend to stimulate the economy. Carter did absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy.

That's what I blame him for.

This relates to Barack Obama in the same way. Obama states that he will cut taxes on those making less that 75k per year. Note--that he doesn't say how much? But at the same time, he will raise capital gains tax to 28%. This is a tax increase to the middle class.

Yet, he also has a fundamental misunderstanding of capital gains. He has yet to realise that lower capital gains tax, increases tax revenue versus higher capital gains tax. That has been proven on two different occasions.

Who knows, maybe Barack Obama went to Jimmy Carters economics class?

Yes, we are in trouble, but the answer is not raising taxes, but reducing government spending. The government can not be all things to all people, that's not what our founders intended.

We need to put an end to entitlement programs, ear marks, and pork barrel spending. Otherwise our days as a free society are numbered.