Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (57296)	10/17/2012 11:53:54 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 71588

VOTING FOR OBAMA IS LIKE THE TITANIC BACKING UP AND HITTING THE ICEBERG AGAIN......

To: LLCF who wrote (57296)	10/18/2012 7:21:42 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	2 Recommendations Respond to of 71588

To: LLCF who wrote (57296)	10/18/2012 7:22:33 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 71588

President Obama warned that GOP hopeful Mitt Romney's proposed income-tax cuts will "cost" the government revenue and repeat Bush policies that he says blew up the deficit. "The centerpiece of his economic plan are tax cuts," Obama said at Tuesday's presidential debate in New York. "That's what took us from surplus to deficit." He called Romney's tax plan "sketchy," because it promises to raise revenues while slashing personal tax rates from top to bottom. His debate sparring partner, Democratic Sen. John Kerry, went further, calling it a "fraud." The Obama camp has strenuously opposed Romney's pro-growth strategy, arguing that tax breaks, especially for the wealthy, "rob" programs for the middle class and poor because they don't raise revenues and don't "pay for themselves." "It has never been done before," Vice President Joe Biden insisted in last week's debate with Romney running-mate Paul Ryan. "It's been done a couple of times, actually," Ryan shot back. The data bear out Ryan. In fact, the White House's own numbers put a big wrinkle in its argument. The historical tables in the back of the latest "Economic Report of the President" show that the Bush tax cuts generated more, not less, federal revenues — a phenomenon that also held true for Presidents Clinton, Reagan and Kennedy. All four leaders, two Republicans and two Democrats, slashed taxes for top individual earners or investors. And once these rate reductions took effect and began stimulating economic activity, record individual income-tax receipts poured into the U.S. Treasury. (See the charts above.) Revenues increased even after adjusting for inflation and population growth. Kennedy Kennedy's major tax cut, which included chopping the top marginal rate to 70% from 91%, became law in early 1964, after his untimely death. It promised to grow the economy and close the budget gap. "Coming at a time of substantial deficit in the federal budget, this was a startling proposal to many observers," said New York University economist Richard Sylla, co-author of "The Evolution of the American Economy." To the shock of many naysaying Democrats, the plan worked. The economy grew at an average 5.5% clip, and unemployment fell to 3.8%. In turn, the annual deficit shrank to $1 billion from $7 billion as individual income-tax receipts nearly doubled. (See the chart.) "Rising income more than offset the decline in income tax rates as far as federal revenue was concerned," Sylla said. Kennedy and his supply-side advisers "could point to those few who remained unpersuaded that despite the tax cuts — or rather because of the tax cuts — the federal deficits of fiscal 1965 and 1966 were substantially reduced from 1962-64 levels." Vindicated, the "new economists" proposed even more tax cuts. But President Johnson opted instead for tax hikes, including a 1968 tax surcharge of 10% on everyone's income. Revenues peaked two years later at $90 billion. Reagan President Reagan picked up where Kennedy left off, slashing the top personal rate from 70% all the way down to 28%. The historic tax relief triggered record new business start-ups and small-business expansion. As in the '60s, tax revenues exploded throughout the '80s as the economy boomed. Between 1982, when the first round of Reagan's across-the-board tax cuts went into effect, and 1990, when President George H.W. Bush broke his no-new-taxes pledge, individual tax receipts jumped 57% to $467 billion. Clinton Obama says he wants to go back to the higher personal income "tax rates we had when Bill Clinton was president. ... That's part of what took us from deficits to surpluses." In fact, those budget surpluses didn't materialize until after Clinton in 1997 reluctantly signed a GOP tax bill that cut the capital-gains rate to 20% from 28%. The result was dramatic. Tax receipts from capital gains ballooned as stock and other capital investment more than tripled. Between 1996 and 2000, "the increase in capital gains revenues accounted for a little over 20% of the total increase in federal revenues," former Treasury official Bruce Bartlett said. For the first time, individual tax receipts hit $1 trillion, before peaking in 2000 from the dot-com bust and Clinton recession. Despite the government taking in more money from lower taxes on investment income, Obama wants to raise those taxes "for purposes of fairness." Bush II While Obama claims the Bush tax cuts caused the recession and record deficits, the evidence says otherwise. After President George W. Bush in 2003 signed the largest tax cut since Reagan — including dropping the top marginal rate to 35% from 39.6% — government receipts from individual income taxes rose from $794 billion to a peak of $1.2 trillion in 2007, when the mortgage crisis began — a jump of 47%. Stronger economic growth expanded the tax base and brought in so much revenue that Bush more than halved the deficit over that period. Revenues weren't the source of the problem. Deficits came from the other side of the ledger: spending, which outstripped new revenues. And for that, both Democrats and Republicans share the blame

To: LLCF who wrote (57296)	10/18/2012 7:23:33 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Why Does Candy Crowley Still Have a Job at CNN? Journalism: If the mainstream press had any self-respect, presidential debate moderator Candy Crowley would be out of work today. Even by the media-bias standards we've come to expect, she set a new, unforgivable low. In a pre-debate interview with the Baltimore Sun's David Zurawik, Crowley talked about how she saw her role as moderator. "These are two grown men," she said, "and if there are two grown men who should know what's going on, or what should go on in this country, it's them. So I'm not sure either of them needs me to defend them or go after the other guy or whatever." But that's precisely what Crowley did at Tuesday's debate. She constantly defended Obama and went after the other guy. If you don't believe it, read the transcript. Crowley repeatedly interrupted Romney — 28 times by one count vs. nine for Obama — and cut Romney off when he was scoring points against Obama. Examples: Crowley: "Mr. Romney, Governor Romney, there'll be plenty of chances here to go on, but I want to ... " Crowley: "Will — will — you certainly will have lots of time here coming up." Crowley: "(Inaudible) ... in the follow-up, it doesn't quite work like that. But I'm going to give you a chance here. I promise you, I'm going to." Crowley: "Governor, I want to move you along." Crowley: "Governor Romney, you can make it short. See all these people? They've been waiting for you. (Inaudible) ... make it short (inaudible)." She hit Romney with pointed follow-up questions. Crowley: "If somehow when you get in there, there isn't enough tax revenue coming in. If somehow the numbers don't add up, would you be willing to look again at a 20% (rate cut)?" Crowley: "I know that you signed an assault-weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts; obviously, with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that, given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with these mass killings? Why is it that you have changed your mind?" She pressed him to stay on topic: Crowley: "Governor, governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were ... banned and are no longer banned." Crowley: "We're way off topic here, Governor Romney." And she was generally boorish to Romney. Crowley: "If I could have you sit down, Governor Romney. Thank you." Contrast that with the way she deferentially talked to Obama: Crowley: "Let me give the president a chance." Crowley: "Governor, let me ask the president something about what you just said." Crowley: "Mr. President, why don't you get in on this quickly, please?" Plus, Crowley let Obama talk 9% longer than Romney. If this were all, it would be bad enough. But the truly unpardonable sin was when she threw Obama a lifeline after the attack on the consulate in Libya came up. Romney caught Obama claiming he'd labeled the attack an act of terror the day after it happened, even though for weeks the administration blamed a YouTube video. Crowley, apparently forgetting her promise not to jump in and "help," leapt to Obama's defense. Crowley: "It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror ... " Obama: "Can you say that a little louder, Candy?" Crowley: "He — he did call it an act of terror." Except, Obama didn't, and after the debate was over Crowley admitted that Romney was "right in the main." Don't get us wrong; we think Romney clearly won the debate — for reasons we explain nearby — even though he had to do so while fighting off two fact-challenged opponents. But after this display of flagrant partisanship, can someone please explain to us why Candy Crowley still has a job at CNN?