Obama Tax Plan: A Killer For Private Practices

[stickyshift]

Especially the payroll tax proposal, taxing self-employed doctors 12.4% for everything they make above $250,000.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AndyFromMDTAXES]

Both candidate's have outlined very different tax plans. On Obama's website (http://www.barackobama.com), this is what he said he would like to do about increasing social security taxes on people who make more than $250k:

Obama does not support uncapping the full payroll tax of 12.4 percent rate. Instead, he and Joe Biden are considering plans that would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 percent more in total (combined employer and employee).


Who knows if this is just the first step to tax every dollar that a self-employed person earns at a rate of 12.4% in addition to any federal and state income taxes that might be due?

 

[strv04]

Obama does not support uncapping the full payroll tax of 12.4 percent rate. Instead, he and Joe Biden are considering plans that would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 percent more in total (combined employer and employee).

First off the government tells it doesn't "ask" people to pay taxes so don't sugar coat this.

I honestly do not understand how people can think of voting for a guy who would say this in our current economic climate. When has raising taxes on people who control hiring/firing employees ever increased jobs or spurred growth. If we vote this guy into office then our country deserves the consequences the come with such nonsense.

 

[UserNameNeeded]

Whatever. Americans need to realize their aversion to taxes (especially the high income class, and the idiots in the middle class who think they'll be rich one day, too) is a major part of the reason we find ourselves in the collective financial mess we are in.

Taxes have historically not correlated to economic growth, contrary to the fallacious Republican mantra. The rich are (and have been under Bush/Republican administration) paying, as a percentage of income, the lowest taxes in history and our economy is now facing the Great Depression Part 2.

 

[MOHS_01]

Whatever. Americans need to realize their aversion to taxes (especially the high income class, and the idiots in the middle class who think they'll be rich one day, too) is a major part of the reason we find ourselves in the collective financial mess we are in.

Taxes have historically not correlated to economic growth, contrary to the fallacious Republican mantra. The rich are (and have been under Bush/Republican administration) paying, as a percentage of income, the lowest taxes in history and our economy is now facing the Great Depression Part 2.

I am not sure where you obtained your degree in economics, but, much like the Icelandic Krona, it is worth about the same as the paper that it was printed on. (at the very least it slants left enough that it makes me uncomfortable, not just on this post but historically as well.... you were doing better and making more sense when you spoke to the problems associated with educational debt)

Comparatively speaking, America's top marginal tax rate (federal only) places it around #25 on the developed nations list.... repeal Bush's tax cuts and we move up to around 15 or 16. Repeal the 2001 tax cuts and enact BHO's proposed plans and we move firmly within the top 10, likely top 5 (it all depends on the details).

I challenge you to make any form of connection, flimsy or not, to our current tax structure and the economic mess that we are experiencing. They simply are not related. If you want to peg local and federal governmental budgetary shortfalls to inadequate taxation, good luck making that argument. All forms of gov't have been spend happy and credit drunk, spending our way to this mess. They wrote checks that they could not cash, and the Federal gov't has been doing so since the 1930's, taking it to even more ridiculous levels in the 60's (under Democratic control both times, I might add). Bush and the mentally handicapped congress that we have in there now have only compounded the problem, but to say that our problems are due to inadequate taxation levels on the productive members of society is a fallacious argument that is frankly offensive to someone who came from little to nothing and worked his di** off to get where he is.

Furthermore, to state that we are facing "the Great Depression, Part 2" based upon the economy's current standing is nothing short of ignorant of the relative facts -- true, we are facing a credit crisis the likes of which have not been seen since 1929, but we are nowhere near Great Depression economic times. Unemployment levels are hovering around 6%, projected to go to 6.8% over the next year -- a far cry from the roughly 25% experienced during the depression. FDR's massive wealth redistribution plan along with protectionist policies, according to most economists, unnecessarily prolonged the economic tragedy. If the credit markets get freed up, we will still have to deal with a massive devaluation of assets (something which MUST happen and, when taken in whole, is a necessary and good thing). There will be further bank failures as even Paulson has openly admitted, so things will likely get worse before they get better -- but the likelihood of a repeat of the 1930's (in depth or duration) remains an unlikely prospect.

 

[drfunktacular]

cf. http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2008/10/ranking-presidents-on-real-economic.html

"Now, after 70 years of data, after observing what we've observed over all sorts of conditions, it is hard to conclude anything but this: one party advocates policies that produce rapid economic growth, and one part dismisses those policies with epithets like "socialism" and advocates instead policies that produce dismal economic growth. And dismal economic growth has consequences. Poor economic growth makes people worse off, and hits them in their pocketbook. And when people are hurting financially, their health suffers, the rate of divorce goes up, suicides increase, and the abortion rate increases. So those who advocate the policies that bring us lower incomes, poorer health, break up families, increase suicides, and increase the rate of abortions are doing us all a lot of harm. More, in fact, than Osama or Saddam could possibly have done. And yet, the folks who advocates those policies question the patriotism of the rest of us. Its very, very strange."

Also, cf. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/29/couricandco/entry4486228.shtmla

But yeah, D's are bad for the economy.

 

[southerndoc]

I worry that we will enter into a depression. We'll see. Hopefully we won't, but I remember many people last year who said we would never enter into a recession.

Personally I don't care to pay more in taxes if it helps reduce our deficits and debt. I consider it like paying more on a credit card to get yourself out of debt. The survival of this country depends on it.

When I calculated the amount extra I will pay in taxes if Obama gets elected, it will be approximately $10,000 more in taxes after I deduct my SEP-IRA, medical insurance, business expenses, etc. There are calculators online that are available to do this for you.

 

[MOHS_01]

cf. http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2008/10/ranking-presidents-on-real-economic.html

"Now, after 70 years of data, after observing what we've observed over all sorts of conditions, it is hard to conclude anything but this: one party advocates policies that produce rapid economic growth, and one part dismisses those policies with epithets like "socialism" and advocates instead policies that produce dismal economic growth. And dismal economic growth has consequences. Poor economic growth makes people worse off, and hits them in their pocketbook. And when people are hurting financially, their health suffers, the rate of divorce goes up, suicides increase, and the abortion rate increases. So those who advocate the policies that bring us lower incomes, poorer health, break up families, increase suicides, and increase the rate of abortions are doing us all a lot of harm. More, in fact, than Osama or Saddam could possibly have done. And yet, the folks who advocates those policies question the patriotism of the rest of us. Its very, very strange."

Also, cf. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/29/couricandco/entry4486228.shtmla

But yeah, D's are bad for the economy.

OK...

GDP is not the sole measure of economic policy or success. If our economy existed within a vacuum, with only internal influences, inputs, and outlays, then yeah, GDP could serve as a good proxy for economic health. It does not, however, and to assume that GDP alone is the only marker of economic health is fairly simplistic and erroneous.

Next -- the Reagan Bush senior years. We fought (and won, mind you) a Cold War. This was accomplished via a capital expenditure escalation with the USSR -- we spent them into submission. This necessitated a sizable increase in federal spending. As for the second factor in the equation, the GDP -- Reagan inherited a broken, stagnant economy. Inflation was quite high, credit was tight, and mortgage interest rates were in the mid teens. Farm failures and bankruptcies were widespread. Asset depreciation was in full swing. He did a remarkable job given the hand that he was dealt.

Clinton enjoyed peaceful, prosperous times where oil was at rock bottom, historical lows. I won't throw rocks as he did an OK job according to many Americans, but he really did luck into an opportune time in history.

GW -- and I'm no huge fan -- was dealt a hand that sucked from opening deal. He mismanaged things and made mistakes along the way, and I am sure that only historical perspective will appropriately determine how his performance was.... but I'm not holding my breath for any Rushmore appearances.

What it really comes down to in my mind is this: our country was predicated on the premise that government should not stand in the way of personal betterment. Many of the proposals made by both current and past Democratic leaders amount to nothing more than wealth redistribution, entitlements, and an enabling mentality. There needs to be incentive to work and become productive members of society; this simply cannot happen without an appropriate negative consequence for failing to do so. Social safety nets are good (as long as they are reasonable and have adequate oversight and protection from abuses), but a blanket redistribution in the form of tax "rebates" or "credits" is nothing more than the involuntary taking from a productive working member and giving to others.

 

[drfunktacular]

What it really comes down to in my mind is this: our country was predicated on the premise that government should not stand in the way of personal betterment. Many of the proposals made by both current and past Democratic leaders amount to nothing more than wealth redistribution, entitlements, and an enabling mentality. There needs to be incentive to work and become productive members of society; this simply cannot happen without an appropriate negative consequence for failing to do so. Social safety nets are good (as long as they are reasonable and have adequate oversight and protection from abuses), but a blanket redistribution in the form of tax "rebates" or "credits" is nothing more than the involuntary taking from a productive working member and giving to others.

Well, I'm not arguing with you, because obviously you are more informed than I. That said, I hope you're closer to retirement than I am, because GWB and the economic wizards at large have essentially necessitated that my future tax brackets will be back up in the pre-Reagan stratosphere--and I won't even get a social safety net out of it, I'll just be paying back the wars and tax cuts we've put on our national credit card!

 

[copacetic]

Next -- the Reagan Bush senior years. We fought (and won, mind you) a Cold War. This was accomplished via a capital expenditure escalation with the USSR -- we spent them into submission..

to say that the united states won the cold warby outspending the USSR is simplistic, and untrue. internal forces had more to do with rhe collapse of the soviet union than America outspending the USSR.

 

[MOHS_01]

Unfortunately, friend, I just started my third year of practice (this week, actually), so while I am a little closer than you, not really.

I understand and appreciate the angst, but it really needs to appropriately directed. The boomers really screwed us, and quite royally. It only took one generation to transform the economic landscape from a nation of savers and pinchers to borrowers and debtors.

The safety net really was not much to speak of for retirement purposes (other than healthcare benefits). I'm hopeful that we will not see tax rates go back to the levels of the 30's, 40's, 50's -- but they most definitely will go up. Another thing to keep in mind when speaking on the issue of taxation -- marginal rates are not the only factor in total tax burden; one must also look at deductions, etc. There is a reason that total tax revenue has remained relatively flat across the varying tax structures that we have implemented -- there were many, many more tax vehicles and deductions during those days than are available to us today.

Lastly, how would electing an unarguably left of left individual into the Presidency, at a time where his party would control both Senate and House, be good for this country? The natural system of checks and balances would be out the door. He, by his own submission, employs a tax and spend mentality. His leanings, political associations, and voting history scare the living hell out of me. From tax and spend to partial birth abortion, gun control to supreme court opposition -- he is quite to the left of even the majority of his party.

One last thing if you believe that I am nuts (which I may be, but I would like to believe that I still live in a country where personal responsibility trumps gov't handouts and infant life is the most precious to protect).... do a little research on BHO's history and voting record on the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act". I respected the man for his intelligence, work ethic, and committment to the common good (even if we do not agree on the best way to go about it) before this; now I legitimately fear this man leading our country with the help of Pelosi, Reed, et al....

 

[MOHS_01]

to say that the united states won the cold warby outspending the USSR is simplistic, and untrue. internal forces had more to do with rhe collapse of the soviet union than America outspending the USSR.

Really... well, partially correct -- but the internal forces were the direct result of the captial requirements of the arms race. The nationalization of their economy prevented any real wealth accumulation or living standard improvements amongst their masses, leading to civil unrest and a desire for change. One cannot submit an ever increasing percentage of the public's work output to "the greater good" without the state eventually facing blowback. Due to our capitalistic economic structure America was able to maintain public support for this competition, as the public's general welfare increased along with the increased militaristic spending. So yes, we continued an arms race through competitive spending and our system worked better in the courts of public opinion than the Soviets did.

 

[Vaderize]

Unfortunately, friend, I just started my third year of practice (this week, actually), so while I am a little closer than you, not really.

I understand and appreciate the angst, but it really needs to appropriately directed. The boomers really screwed us, and quite royally. It only took one generation to transform the economic landscape from a nation of savers and pinchers to borrowers and debtors.

The safety net really was not much to speak of for retirement purposes (other than healthcare benefits). I'm hopeful that we will not see tax rates go back to the levels of the 30's, 40's, 50's -- but they most definitely will go up. Another thing to keep in mind when speaking on the issue of taxation -- marginal rates are not the only factor in total tax burden; one must also look at deductions, etc. There is a reason that total tax revenue has remained relatively flat across the varying tax structures that we have implemented -- there were many, many more tax vehicles and deductions during those days than are available to us today.

Lastly, how would electing an unarguably left of left individual into the Presidency, at a time where his party would control both Senate and House, be good for this country? The natural system of checks and balances would be out the door. He, by his own submission, employs a tax and spend mentality. His leanings, political associations, and voting history scare the living hell out of me. From tax and spend to partial birth abortion, gun control to supreme court opposition -- he is quite to the left of even the majority of his party.

One last thing if you believe that I am nuts (which I may be, but I would like to believe that I still live in a country where personal responsibility trumps gov't handouts and infant life is the most precious to protect).... do a little research on BHO's history and voting record on the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act". I respected the man for his intelligence, work ethic, and committment to the common good (even if we do not agree on the best way to go about it) before this; now I legitimately fear this man leading our country with the help of Pelosi, Reed, et al....

This is very much the typical republican set of soundbytes we tend to hear these days. As a physician, I am appalled that you would support an abortion ban that transfers decision-making authority away from women and their doctors to politicians looking for votes. As far as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act goes, Senator Obama has gone on record numerous times as saying he would support such a bill if it allowed an exception for the mother's health, the same problem that the late-term abortion ban has.

There is no such thing in the medical literature as a "Partial-Birth Abortion", it is a political term invented by individuals with an agenda who were trying to inflame the public. As a result, we had a law passed banning a medical procedure which sets the precedent for untrained, non-medical professions to intrude even farther into clinical decision-making. At the very least, a late-term pregnancy in crisis, where the mother may need to undergo a termination procedure but cannot survive surgery, is now more likely to result in death as the physician of record may choose a conservative approach where aggression is warranted, for fear of prosecution.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. The politicization of this issue alone has led to the Supreme Court reversing it's position within a five-year period, something previously unheard of in court's past jurisprudence, for no other reason than turnover on the bench. This greatly harms an institution already badly tarnished by it's involvement in the 2000 Presidential election.

Great job on the propaganda points, but Senator Obama may yet be president. I can see by your use of his middle initial that you are likely susceptible to the more unsavory rumors about the man. If he were a Muslim, would that truly matter? If so, why? Are we that intolerant in the United States?

If you don't want to vote for him because you disagree with his policies, that is your business, but don't purposefully distort the man's record and his intentions just because he's "left of left", in your opinion, or call out his middle name as a means to scare people or a drive a visceral wedge into one's rational thought process.

"Liberal" is not a curse word this election cycle. As far as divided government goes, that has worked wonders during the past two years, with Bush vetoing everything "just because" it is coming out of a democratic congress. There is no spirit of bipartisanship, and McCain is not going to restore that. One-party government can be a disaster, but after the six years of the republicans messing it up, I am willing to give the democrats a chance.

There are more important things than taxes.

Peace.

 

[GassiusClay]

1.) FAIR tax is the only tax that needs to exist in this country.

You buy something. Then the government should collect taxes. That way when Bill Gates buys a Ferrari, nobody can b3tch about or be jealous of his car because he paid an appropriate tax on it. Also, this way people are more reluctant to buy dumb cr3p that they don't need. An Ipod = 129. Fair tax =25%. FairPod price about 160. You want it. Think about it.

2.) Credit card maximums should be less than 250 until the payer has showed that they can pay back timely for at least 6-12 months. Then increase limits.

3.) Loans can only be given out if liquid cash is available. That way no government has to enforce a company if it chooses to give away ITS OWN money. Part of the current problem is an economy based of borrowing from borrowers. You shouldn't be able to loan unless you got the funds readily available.

What all this would do? Plummet the spending and useless jobs out the door. Maybe bring back some actually home production jobs as long as Americans are willing to spend on American work rather than go for cheap lead products and fund other nations.

 

[southerndoc]

1.) FAIR tax is the only tax that needs to exist in this country.

You buy something. Then the government should collect taxes. That way when Bill Gates buys a Ferrari, nobody can b3tch about or be jealous of his car because he paid an appropriate tax on it. Also, this way people are more reluctant to buy dumb cr3p that they don't need. An Ipod = 129. Fair tax =25%. FairPod price about 160. You want it. Think about it.

This would certainly shift a lot of people from spend mode to save mode.

We Americans are spending more than our means. The saver mentality common in the early 1900-1950's has been replaced with the borrow mentality.

Like you, I am also in favor of the fair tax. Too bad Huckabee isn't running against Obama. Huckabee was a big supporter of fair tax.

 

[RustyGator]

This would certainly shift a lot of people from spend mode to save mode.

We Americans are spending more than our means. The saver mentality common in the early 1900-1950's has been replaced with the borrow mentality.

Like you, I am also in favor of the fair tax. Too bad Huckabee isn't running against Obama. Huckabee was a big supporter of fair tax.

Unfortunately, the economy is not any better if people are just saving and not spending. When Congress enacts tax legislation their goal is to have people save AND spend with the same $1.

Neither candidate is going to save our economy and W isn't the sole reason we are into this mess. About 5 years ago I went to a convention where the speaker was telling us all that in 2008 we would see the greatest depression since the Great Depression. I thought he was crazy since our economy was getting stronger post-9/11. Amazingly he was spot-on. He premised his argument on the "Baby Boomers" retiring. With Baby Boomer retiring, again, comes less spending. With less spending comes are weaker economy. This is why a "fair tax" wouldn't work. It's nice in theory...and fair!...but it definitely won't fix our financial situation.

I'm definitely not trying to talk in favor of either candidate, because again, I don't think either of their plans could save us right now. We are in a cyclical event and won't see the light of day for a few more years.

What we need to do is to is strengthen our middle economic class. Whichever candidate you think can do this the best is probably the one you should vote for if this situation is important to you.

 

[drfunktacular]

There are more important things than taxes.

I blame Grover Norquist for much of the absurdity in today's electoral politics.

 

[MOHS_01]

This is very much the typical republican set of soundbytes we tend to hear these days. As a physician, I am appalled that you would support an abortion ban that transfers decision-making authority away from women and their doctors to politicians looking for votes. As far as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act goes, Senator Obama has gone on record numerous times as saying he would support such a bill if it allowed an exception for the mother's health, the same problem that the late-term abortion ban has.

There is no such thing in the medical literature as a "Partial-Birth Abortion", it is a political term invented by individuals with an agenda who were trying to inflame the public. As a result, we had a law passed banning a medical procedure which sets the precedent for untrained, non-medical professions to intrude even farther into clinical decision-making. At the very least, a late-term pregnancy in crisis, where the mother may need to undergo a termination procedure but cannot survive surgery, is now more likely to result in death as the physician of record may choose a conservative approach where aggression is warranted, for fear of prosecution.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. The politicization of this issue alone has led to the Supreme Court reversing it's position within a five-year period, something previously unheard of in court's past jurisprudence, for no other reason than turnover on the bench. This greatly harms an institution already badly tarnished by it's involvement in the 2000 Presidential election.

Great job on the propaganda points, but Senator Obama may yet be president. I can see by your use of his middle initial that you are likely susceptible to the more unsavory rumors about the man. If he were a Muslim, would that truly matter? If so, why? Are we that intolerant in the United States?

If you don't want to vote for him because you disagree with his policies, that is your business, but don't purposefully distort the man's record and his intentions just because he's "left of left", in your opinion, or call out his middle name as a means to scare people or a drive a visceral wedge into one's rational thought process.

"Liberal" is not a curse word this election cycle. As far as divided government goes, that has worked wonders during the past two years, with Bush vetoing everything "just because" it is coming out of a democratic congress. There is no spirit of bipartisanship, and McCain is not going to restore that. One-party government can be a disaster, but after the six years of the republicans messing it up, I am willing to give the democrats a chance.

There are more important things than taxes.

Peace.

Peace my a**...

FYI, I grew up blue collar, blue blooded Democrat.... it was not until the party was hijacked by increasingly leftist ideologies that I jumped ship. I would not consider myself a card carrying Republican either as they have sold their souls as well. I, like a growing number of Americans, find myself in the situation where I do not have a prominent party that supports my views. Both parties are for big government, and both parties believe government to be the ultimate solution to any problem. One is socialistic, one takes Keynesian thinking to a whole new extreme; both views and approaches are counterproductive and scary.

I won't pretend to know your chosen medical field, but the "health of the mother" is non-truth, legislative, legal phrase that cannot be clearly defined in a medical setting.... so don't paint BS partisanship on it. In the event of true medical crisis on the part of the mother it is considered an induction of labor; when discussing this issue the key word should be elective abortion, and should be reserved for the voluntary destruction of the unborn. You wish to speak of being appalled? I am appalled that any God fearing member of society would believe that the destruction of a viable unborn child should fall under the whim, discretion, or "choice" of anyone.

And as far as taxes go -- when you start having half of your money involuntarily seized from your earnings to cover these very programs and institutions that create, promote, and enable such societal travesties you can comment on the appropriateness and fairness of the tax structure.....

 

[MOHS_01]

Unfortunately, the economy is not any better if people are just saving and not spending. When Congress enacts tax legislation their goal is to have people save AND spend with the same $1.

Neither candidate is going to save our economy and W isn't the sole reason we are into this mess. About 5 years ago I went to a convention where the speaker was telling us all that in 2008 we would see the greatest depression since the Great Depression. I thought he was crazy since our economy was getting stronger post-9/11. Amazingly he was spot-on. He premised his argument on the "Baby Boomers" retiring. With Baby Boomer retiring, again, comes less spending. With less spending comes are weaker economy. This is why a "fair tax" wouldn't work. It's nice in theory...and fair!...but it definitely won't fix our financial situation.

I'm definitely not trying to talk in favor of either candidate, because again, I don't think either of their plans could save us right now. We are in a cyclical event and won't see the light of day for a few more years.

What we need to do is to is strengthen our middle economic class. Whichever candidate you think can do this the best is probably the one you should vote for if this situation is important to you.

Actually, the points that you make are a reason for "the fair tax". It is true that consumption and discretionary spending declines as retirement rolls on -- but this effect is not seen in early retirement, and the effect is not as great as the impact on tax revenues resulting from the transition from wage earner to retiree. A flat tax, coupled with a consumption tax in some form, is arguable the fairest method of taxation. This would necessitate doing away with a large number (possibly all) deductions, credits, etc. Our current tax code promotes debt and financial unsoundness -- just look at the mess that we are in. It was instituted with this very effect in mind -- Uncle Sam wanted to transition public habits away from saving and hording to spending. It worked.... too well.

 

[rgerwin]

Soooooo...if I don't believe in God, does that mean I get my women's rights back?

Peace my a**...

FYI, I grew up blue collar, blue blooded Democrat.... it was not until the party was hijacked by increasingly leftist ideologies that I jumped ship. I would not consider myself a card carrying Republican either as they have sold their souls as well. I, like a growing number of Americans, find myself in the situation where I do not have a prominent party that supports my views. Both parties are for big government, and both parties believe government to be the ultimate solution to any problem. One is socialistic, one takes Keynesian thinking to a whole new extreme; both views and approaches are counterproductive and scary.

I won't pretend to know your chosen medical field, but the "health of the mother" is non-truth, legislative, legal phrase that cannot be clearly defined in a medical setting.... so don't paint BS partisanship on it. In the event of true medical crisis on the part of the mother it is considered an induction of labor; when discussing this issue the key word should be elective abortion, and should be reserved for the voluntary destruction of the unborn. You wish to speak of being appalled? I am appalled that any God fearing member of society would believe that the destruction of a viable unborn child should fall under the whim, discretion, or "choice" of anyone.

And as far as taxes go -- when you start having half of your money involuntarily seized from your earnings to cover these very programs and institutions that create, promote, and enable such societal travesties you can comment on the appropriateness and fairness of the tax structure.....

 

[UserNameNeeded]

I suggest some of the people who can't be bothered to read up on Obama's own website his tax proposals or the assessments made by independent organizations (non-partisan), actually watch the much hyped exchange between Obama and Joe the Plumber:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRPbCSSXyp0

I don't see how any one with an open mind to reason could argue against the logic of what Obama said. Of the two major candidates, Obama's tax proposal is better for all Americans (except, maybe, those who inherited their wealth).

For docs who start their own private practice, Obama's proposing zero capital gains taxes for small businesses. That's a windfall for docs, especially those in primary care.

 

[RabbMD]

So how exactly does 0 capital gains help a small business organized physician?? If you sell your practice sure. If you sell individual capital stock in your S corp sure... But otherwise you our organized as either a LLC or an S corp. S corps I know pay normal income tax on their S corp distributions so 0% capital gains is worthless until I retire and sell my corporate stock. Keep drinking that coolaid, Obama offers nothing of value to physicians. Who here thinks a single payer (which he has been quoted is his ultimate goal) would be a good thing? Medicare rates for everyone weeeeee.

 

[dragonfly99]

I don't think either Obama or McCain has adequately addressed health care issues, or the runaway costs we have in medicine. The reason is it would be politically painful to say that we are going to have to make hard decisions, whether or not the gov't takes over medicine or not (from a physician point of view, I hope they don't, but I can see why some frustrated citizens might think it's time to resort to that soon).

As far as taxes go, I agree that Obama's tax plan overall has less "voodoo economics". McCain's I think would get us further into national debt, which we don't need. Obama's corporate taxes would/could be a bad thing for some small businesses...as pointed out above, many small businesses are set up as corporations and would therefore end up paying higher taxes than they do now with his plan...at least that is how I understand it. To me, raising the income tax on people making >250k is not a big deal, since somebody with that much money is SO rich. They'll still have so much money it ain't even funny! We really need for Congress (both parties) to control their spending, however. I would favor cutting the congressional pension, free health care benefits, etc. I'm still waiting to hear a senator from either party propose that!

 

[THP]

From Neal Boortz (an explanation of taxes on small businesses):

"95% of small businesses won't pay any more taxes."



Once people started hearing that the very people that Obama wanted to raise taxes on are the people we depend on for jobs, The BO campaign had to come up with a line to neuter the "small business" argument. Barack Obama knows he's in trouble if the voters find out that 70% of all extant jobs are in the small business sector and that 80% of all new jobs are coming from small businesses. So, Obama comes up with this line about 95% of small businesses not paying any more taxes under his plan.



Here's the trick. Let me illustrate reality with a simple comparison. Let's say that we have 1000 small businesses. About 950 of them, that would be 95%, employ one or two people each for a total employment figure of 1,200. Now let's assume that the other 50 businesses employ anywhere from 20 people to hundreds of people for a total of about 5,000 workers. If someone comes along and says 95% of small businesses won't be affected by his tax increases, how do you feel? You know that the tax increase is going to slam those businesses that employ 5,000 workers, while leaving the 95% of businesses that employ just 1,200 people alone. Quite a deal, huh. Aren't you impressed?



The point here is that it's not the percentage of small businesses your tax increases hit, it's the percentage of small business employees. Unfortunately that nuance is lost on the majority of voters educated by the government, and the MoveOn Media sure isn't going to take the time to explain it to you. Obama's tax increases are going to hit the small business owners who employ the most people. They are the ones that make the most money. These business owners are going to respond to the tax increases one of two ways. They'll increase prices -- which hit all of us -- or they'll cut expenses. Their number one expense? Personnel. Vote for Obama, say TTFN to your job. Makes perfect sense to me, but then I was government educated too.

 

[MOHS_01]

I don't think either Obama or McCain has adequately addressed health care issues, or the runaway costs we have in medicine. The reason is it would be politically painful to say that we are going to have to make hard decisions, whether or not the gov't takes over medicine or not (from a physician point of view, I hope they don't, but I can see why some frustrated citizens might think it's time to resort to that soon).

As far as taxes go, I agree that Obama's tax plan overall has less "voodoo economics". McCain's I think would get us further into national debt, which we don't need. Obama's corporate taxes would/could be a bad thing for some small businesses...as pointed out above, many small businesses are set up as corporations and would therefore end up paying higher taxes than they do now with his plan...at least that is how I understand it. To me, raising the income tax on people making >250k is not a big deal, since somebody with that much money is SO rich. They'll still have so much money it ain't even funny! We really need for Congress (both parties) to control their spending, however. I would favor cutting the congressional pension, free health care benefits, etc. I'm still waiting to hear a senator from either party propose that!

Dragon,

You are missing the point that those who argue against more oppressive taxation are attempting to make -- those of us in private practice already see almost half of our pay being consumed by taxes. We feel that is more than enough, and take great offense at the suggestion that we somehow ought to pay more. I believe that 40-50% is more than enough to take from any one individual, regardless of their income.

BTW, $250K is not rich if you are servicing $300k in student loans... especially when you realize that the majority of these payments will be made in after tax dollars given the cap on student loan interest deduction.

 

[DrJack]

I found this site accidentally and joined to make a point to those who believe Obama's plan won't hurt the dental and medical professions. In better times, donating services was affordable. With dental and medical well-services being back-burnered, dentists and physicians nationwide are hurting. With the current slump in the economy, my private dental practice's majority of patient appointments or where they're beating my door down for services in hygiene and dental treatments are those recipients of donated services. With Obama's plan, we will devastate. As founding member and/or participant of foundation where I see as many as 400 school children per year that do not have insurance, more from missionaries, including priests, nuns, retirement homes, participating member of Medicaid and Healthy Kids programs, part of the ADA free denture program, and more of the same, I personally donate 1/3 of my services and my time to the uninsured, children, mentally handicapped, the elderly and the "working poor" in my community and the labs give me no discount. The overhead, admin., hygienists' time, supplies, overhead costs of $500. per hour where no discount is given on top of lab fees, are "on me."


With many good will projects at hand, Obama's economic plan and socialism solutions has the potential will destroy not only my practice, but many others with increases in taxes. What the world doesn't seem to notice is that the group he plans to attack is us, the ones that help them. Yes, we make more than $250K but we are the nation's employers and donators of free services. Obama will be making what we already are struggling to be doing, somewhat impossible. For any person that doesn't see the inevitable Obama harms, the nation needs to know his plan consists of destroying the good we donating doctors are trying to accomplish without socialism. My dental-medical organization does have a health care resolution; however, no one is listening. Those of us who choose to donate services to the underserved and working poor populations will be taxed to greater degrees to "spread the wealth" they think we "fat cats" have which is not the case. What most people do not realize is that when we donate services we get no tax credits or write-offs. We get, "Thanks a lot." To those of us who literally struggle to do good especially in bad times, are in trouble with Obama's "good intentions" to the middle class; he will be hurting them with loss of jobs and loss of doctors' donating services ten-fold. Feel free to contact me if you have questions on the Obama Tax Plan that will destroy our professions' donators of services; I would be honored to speak with you at any time. Good luck to all of you.

John J. Ryan, DMD
Founder, President, CEO IADMD
The International Assoc. Dental Medical Disciplines
39 Webber Road
East Hampstead, NH 03826
http://www.iadmd.org/AboutUs/WhoWeAre/tabid/116/Default.aspx
(603) 382-7675

 

[Miami_med]

There is no reason by any theory or by any unskewed statistic to believe that raising taxes fixes the economy. Over the course of this century we have had a combination attempt to have our cake and eat it to. It goes something like this. Democrats raise taxes and implement services, regulations, etc... Intervention into free market damages economy, people lose jobs, etc... Response, people vote republican. The republican then drops the taxes but keeps the programs. A deficit forms. This goes on until the deficit causes inflation as loose central bank policies are implemented to support the deficit spending. That hurts the economy. Then people vote democrat. The democrat raises taxes, etc.... Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

Lower taxes do and always will stimulate economic growth. The government cannot stimulate economic growth outside of providing a functional infrastructure for individuals to generate wealth upon. The failures of all "economic conservatives" have been that it in the face of the impossibility of ever dismantling a beauracracy, they have consistently failed to eliminate the extra spending that the extra taxes were paying for. Building new beauracracies or raising taxes more does not solve this problem. Deficit spending is usually bad. Raising taxes is also generally bad. The solutioin: SPEND LESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[abcabc1]

Whatever. Americans need to realize their aversion to taxes (especially the high income class, and the idiots in the middle class who think they'll be rich one day, too) is a major part of the reason we find ourselves in the collective financial mess we are in.

Taxes have historically not correlated to economic growth, contrary to the fallacious Republican mantra. The rich are (and have been under Bush/Republican administration) paying, as a percentage of income, the lowest taxes in history and our economy is now facing the Great Depression Part 2.

Keep in mind that the wealthiest Americans pay the vast majority of taxes. I think it goes that the top 1% of earners pay 40% of all taxes, while the top 10% pay 60-70%. The bottom 50% of earners pay 2.9% of all taxes, with nearly 40% of filers paying in income tax whatsoever. Obama wants to cut these people checks, which is welfare (as the money is taken from those who do pay tax).

If you took the ratio of (dollar in public services received/dollar of taxes paid into the system) for the lower 50% of earners and divided it by the same ratio for the top 50% of earners, it could be 50-to-1 or higher. How much more can wealthy people get squeezed?

 

[drfunktacular]

Keep in mind that the wealthiest Americans pay the vast majority of taxes. I think it goes that the top 1% of earners pay 40% of all taxes, while the top 10% pay 60-70%. The bottom 50% of earners pay 2.9% of all taxes, with nearly 40% of filers paying in income tax whatsoever. Obama wants to cut these people checks, which is welfare (as the money is taken from those who do pay tax).

If you took the ratio of (dollar in public services received/dollar of taxes paid into the system) for the lower 50% of earners and divided it by the same ratio for the top 50% of earners, it could be 50-to-1 or higher. How much more can wealthy people get squeezed?

Why is it unfair that those who have benefited the most from Bush's economic policies should have to pay more to repair the damage to our economy and national infrastructure?

Source: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/10/pdf/redistribution.pdf

 

[MOHS_01]

Nothing makes me happier than having a non-tax paying student lecture those working on tax fairness, particularly on the subject of proposed taxation changes and their implications for medical practices.....

Few of us are arguing for the total abolishment of the progressive tax structure; we are simply stating that those of us in these "high income" tax brackets already shoulder a significant portion of the overall tax burden. I also find it curiously convenient when those who propose "taxing the other guy more" ignore the facts of tax burden distribution across society....

Taxes were too high prior to the Bush cuts; while the bulk of dollars "saved" from the tax man disproportionately went to a small percentage of folks with higher earnings, we need to keep in mind that these were the folks paying the taxes to begin with. We also need to not ignore the fact that these "evil" Bush tax cuts freed more individuals from any federal tax liability than any preceeding tax plan (so who really helped low income folks from a pure taxation standpoint?).

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

What Obama proposes amounts to a redistribution -- sending "credits" -- read checks -- to folks who fall below a specified AGI regardless of their true tax liability, further our evolution to a welfare state. I cannot believe the number of seemingly intelligent people who continue to gloss over this fact and remain oblivious of the destination that lies at the end of this path.

 

[drfunktacular]

Nothing makes me happier than having a non-tax paying student lecture those working on tax fairness, particularly on the subject of proposed taxation changes and their implications for medical practices.....

1) Who cares if I am a student? I still get to vote (and did). You don't get special rhetorical authority because you started medical school before I did. If we're casting aspersions anyway, I would view a taxpayer's views as suspect, because they have a conflict of interest in voting against any new tax/spending policies regardless of their merit. (Like I said earlier, I blame Grover Norquist)

Taxes were too high prior to the Bush cuts; while the bulk of dollars "saved" from the tax man disproportionately went to a small percentage of folks with higher earnings, we need to keep in mind that these were the folks paying the taxes to begin with. We also need to not ignore the fact that these "evil" Bush tax cuts freed more individuals from any federal tax liability than any preceeding tax plan (so who really helped low income folks from a pure taxation standpoint?).

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

2) This is kind of a non-provable assertion. Bush wasn't competing with an alternative presidential tax cut policy, so I can't really say he did better than anyone--he just did what he did and all we can look at is the consequences. I agree that that foundation's research shows an increase in the number of non-payers, but not paying taxes is not identical with being better off. A lot of those low-income people depend on social programs. How did those tax cuts (along with their commensurate massive, mind-bending increases in the federal debt and deficit) affect the viability and health of those programs? I would venture to say: not in a postive way. So yes, they pay less taxes, but they also get less for their taxes.

What Obama proposes amounts to a redistribution -- sending "credits" -- read checks -- to folks who fall below a specified AGI regardless of their true tax liability, further our evolution to a welfare state. I cannot believe the number of seemingly intelligent people who continue to gloss over this fact and remain oblivious of the destination that lies at the end of this path.

3) I guess it's just a difference of opinion, but I think the case can be made that Bush' economic policies were a redistribution of wealth in the opposite direction (cf. the graphs posted above). If you were rich, you did better with Bush. If you were poor or middle class, you stayed the same or did worse--assuming you kept your job at all. I don't think it's radical to view the massive transfer of wealth from nurses/retail/factory workers (e.g.) to hedge fund managers/I-bankers/CEOs of failing corporations (e.g.) as a negative, and elect someone with plans to moderate it.

But we obviously have a difference of underlying assumptions.

 

[RabbMD]

Why not just give $25,000 refundable tax credits by raising taxes on those making over $150,000 25% to everyone making under $50,000 AGI a year. That would be good right??? It is a slippery slope, and the logical conclusion is that if some wealth redistribution is good, then more is better. I did not benefit at all from the Bush tax cuts, I was a medical and resident until last year. I still get to pay for new Iphones for the "underprivileged?"

I have never heard an argument of where we should stop this wealth redistribution.

No one ever explained how 0% capital gains actually helps a small business either. You only get capital gains when you sell something that is an investment. So most small businesses only experience capital gains when they are sold to others. Unrealized capital gains are not currently taxed, so unless Pelosi invents a new taxed on unrealized capital gains, Obama is playing a shellgame of empty promises with the 0% capital gains for small businesses.

 

[Pulpal Insult]

Hey Funk,
What's the statute of limitations here. By your logic wages earners between 1956-1971 were paid more than what their productivity would normally allow to be paid. Boy, that seems 'unfair' to those employers. Maybe we should go and charge all those wage earners backtaxes so we can give the proceeds to those employers. I mean... what fair is fair, right?

Why is it unfair that those who have benefited the most from Bush's economic policies should have to pay more to repair the damage to our economy and national infrastructure?

Source: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/10/pdf/redistribution.pdf

 

[drfunktacular]

Hey Funk,
What's the statute of limitations here. By your logic wages earners between 1956-1971 were paid more than what their productivity would normally allow to be paid. Boy, that seems 'unfair' to those employers. Maybe we should go and charge all those wage earners backtaxes so we can give the proceeds to those employers. I mean... what fair is fair, right?

I would say they (meaning the employer class) have more than made up the difference in 2000-8. At least in the period you point out, wages and productivity were both on an upward track, if at differing rates; during the Bush administration, wages stagnated almost absolutely.

 

[Miami_med]

What all of these graphs show is that everyone in the US continues to get richer regardless of who's in power. The big difference (and what seems to send everyone into a tizzy) is that in the last few years, a few people on top made a heck of a lot more. It says nothing about everyone else doing worse. The only "fairness" argument that makes sense here based purely on the numbers is some sort of jealousy or envy of those doing better when your own situation is not deteriorating. You are also assuming that the increase in productivity had anything to do with increasing worker productivity. Also, by this logic, a marginal tax decrease is warranted, as the top 1% are making so much more money, that a smaller percentage would still provide the government with the same amount of money to provide public services and provide for defense (unless you're also trying to argue that the government is in some way entitled to a raise everytime the citizenry raises its productivity). Remember that having a tax system that taxes a percentage of income automatically raises your taxes if you make more money, so raising the tax rate effectively taxes you twice.

Not based purely on the numbers, there has been some manipulation of money in the US over the last 8 years. Actually, that manipulation has occurred over the last century, and it is the result of central bank manipulation of the money supply, which always favors the well connected (the same people who often benefit the most from reductions in capital gains taxes). Higher marginal tax rates and progressive income taxation largely punishes high paid hard workers who lack shelters for their incomes. This includes physicians, as well as other professionals, and it includes small business owners in many instances as well.

All arguments in favor of wealth redistribution are based on an assumption that many simply don't agree with. They assume that generated wealth is communal (as opposed to the direct result of work, effort, or planning on the part of those who actually generate it) and that uneven distribution of that wealth is somehow unfair. I simply don't get this.

I also never thought I'd see the day that we'd regress so far as to essentially call the taxpayer a "special interest" as though his interest in how the government spends his money should be viewed with suspicion. Of course he wants to protect himself. It's all part of the re-defining of everyday words in our ridiculously over politically-correct society. A push for the government to provide a service that benefits a specific group of people at the expense of others or provide money to one area at the expense of another is a special interest push. Someone making money who wants to be taxed at a rate that is closer to the average rate is not a special interest and should frankly have a much greater say as to how his money is spent than a student (who often is a special interest with loans guaranteed with taxpayer money) who hasn't had to earn any of the money he spends.

 

[drfunktacular]

I also never thought I'd see the day that we'd regress so far as to essentially call the taxpayer a "special interest" as though his interest in how the government spends his money should be viewed with suspicion. Of course he wants to protect himself. It's all part of the re-defining of everyday words in our ridiculously over politically-correct society. A push for the government to provide a service that benefits a specific group of people at the expense of others or provide money to one area at the expense of another is a special interest push. Someone making money who wants to be taxed at a rate that is closer to the average rate is not a special interest and should frankly have a much greater say as to how his money is spent than a student (who often is a special interest with loans guaranteed with taxpayer money) who hasn't had to earn any of the money he spends.

In my defense (against charges of regression), I was being largely sarcastic.

Mohs was attempting to rhetorically delegitimate my participation in the conversation, I was merely being ironic in returning the favor.

 

[Miami_med]

In my defense (against charges of regression), I was being largely sarcastic.

Mohs was attempting to rhetorically delegitimate my participation in the conversation, I was merely being ironic in returning the favor.

Forgive me for joining the ranks of those who failed to notice sarcasm.

 

[Bleurberry]

I found this site accidentally and joined to make a point to those who believe Obama's plan won't hurt the dental and medical professions. In better times, donating services was affordable. With dental and medical well-services being back-burnered, dentists and physicians nationwide are hurting. With the current slump in the economy, my private dental practice's majority of patient appointments or where they're beating my door down for services in hygiene and dental treatments are those recipients of donated services. With Obama's plan, we will devastate. As founding member and/or participant of foundation where I see as many as 400 school children per year that do not have insurance, more from missionaries, including priests, nuns, retirement homes, participating member of Medicaid and Healthy Kids programs, part of the ADA free denture program, and more of the same, I personally donate 1/3 of my services and my time to the uninsured, children, mentally handicapped, the elderly and the "working poor" in my community and the labs give me no discount. The overhead, admin., hygienists' time, supplies, overhead costs of $500. per hour where no discount is given on top of lab fees, are "on me."


With many good will projects at hand, Obama's economic plan and socialism solutions has the potential will destroy not only my practice, but many others with increases in taxes. What the world doesn't seem to notice is that the group he plans to attack is us, the ones that help them. Yes, we make more than $250K but we are the nation's employers and donators of free services. Obama will be making what we already are struggling to be doing, somewhat impossible. For any person that doesn't see the inevitable Obama harms, the nation needs to know his plan consists of destroying the good we donating doctors are trying to accomplish without socialism. My dental-medical organization does have a health care resolution; however, no one is listening. Those of us who choose to donate services to the underserved and working poor populations will be taxed to greater degrees to "spread the wealth" they think we "fat cats" have which is not the case. What most people do not realize is that when we donate services we get no tax credits or write-offs. We get, "Thanks a lot." To those of us who literally struggle to do good especially in bad times, are in trouble with Obama's "good intentions" to the middle class; he will be hurting them with loss of jobs and loss of doctors' donating services ten-fold. Feel free to contact me if you have questions on the Obama Tax Plan that will destroy our professions' donators of services; I would be honored to speak with you at any time. Good luck to all of you.

John J. Ryan, DMD
Founder, President, CEO IADMD
The International Assoc. Dental Medical Disciplines
39 Webber Road
East Hampstead, NH 03826

(603) 382-7675

Send me some information on this. I have no clue what you're referring to. Just cite me sources, please, and I'll read up on it. Thanks

 

[Bleurberry]

Nothing makes me happier than having a non-tax paying student lecture those working on tax fairness, particularly on the subject of proposed taxation changes and their implications for medical practices.....

Few of us are arguing for the total abolishment of the progressive tax structure; we are simply stating that those of us in these "high income" tax brackets already shoulder a significant portion of the overall tax burden. I also find it curiously convenient when those who propose "taxing the other guy more" ignore the facts of tax burden distribution across society....

Taxes were too high prior to the Bush cuts; while the bulk of dollars "saved" from the tax man disproportionately went to a small percentage of folks with higher earnings, we need to keep in mind that these were the folks paying the taxes to begin with. We also need to not ignore the fact that these "evil" Bush tax cuts freed more individuals from any federal tax liability than any preceeding tax plan (so who really helped low income folks from a pure taxation standpoint?).

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

What Obama proposes amounts to a redistribution -- sending "credits" -- read checks -- to folks who fall below a specified AGI regardless of their true tax liability, further our evolution to a welfare state. I cannot believe the number of seemingly intelligent people who continue to gloss over this fact and remain oblivious of the destination that lies at the end of this path.

In my view, the problem began with professionals voting for a man, regardless of his indiscretions, based upon their taxes. Now if you're saying that, in addition to having an all volunteer armed forces so the rest of "us" can carry on with our "business", in addition to having the largest force of mercenaries in the history of the world operating on contract from the US government in Iraq indefinetly, that thinning our defensive resources to the extent that we now are beginning to lose our hard-fought foothold in Afghanistan, that our water system infrastructure is failing across the country and we're facing an unprecedented crisis on multiple fronts, that we should just overlook all of these facts and just cut social services programs and maintain the bush tax cuts, not bring taxes back to even PRE-WAR levels of the 1990's... I don't know how you're going to explain your premise to those making less than you. I really don't. I think that argument was lost in the beginning of November.

That being said, if people read more than one magazine or watched more than their favorite TV news program, they may find out that Obama is a through and through centrist, and he has no intention of destroying the only vibrant sector of the economy that largely remains. Why is everyone having a hard time with this? Does anyone really believe McCain was going to erect a wall along the Mexican border? "WELL IF HE SAID IT IT MUST BE TRUE" This is politics, ok? Let's not be naive. Obama is not going to raise taxes on you for at least another year, and when he does, there will most likely accompany a deeper reform of the tax code.

If we weren't lowering standards by promoting uneducated retail labor, driving out manufacturing, holding a laissefaire position about public education and drop out rates, etc. etc., there would be less of a burden on the rich, or wealthier.

 

[Miami_med]

In my view, the problem began with professionals voting for a man, regardless of his indiscretions, based upon their taxes. Now if you're saying that, in addition to having an all volunteer armed forces so the rest of "us" can carry on with our "business", in addition to having the largest force of mercenaries in the history of the world operating on contract from the US government in Iraq indefinetly, that thinning our defensive resources to the extent that we now are beginning to lose our hard-fought foothold in Afghanistan, that our water system infrastructure is failing across the country and we're facing an unprecedented crisis on multiple fronts, that we should just overlook all of these facts and just cut social services programs and maintain the bush tax cuts, not bring taxes back to even PRE-WAR levels of the 1990's... I don't know how you're going to explain your premise to those making less than you. I really don't. I think that argument was lost in the beginning of November.

That being said, if people read more than one magazine or watched more than their favorite TV news program, they may find out that Obama is a through and through centrist, and he has no intention of destroying the only vibrant sector of the economy that largely remains. Why is everyone having a hard time with this? Does anyone really believe McCain was going to erect a wall along the Mexican border? "WELL IF HE SAID IT IT MUST BE TRUE" This is politics, ok? Let's not be naive. Obama is not going to raise taxes on you for at least another year, and when he does, there will most likely accompany a deeper reform of the tax code.

If we weren't lowering standards by promoting uneducated retail labor, driving out manufacturing, holding a laissefaire position about public education and drop out rates, etc. etc., there would be less of a burden on the rich, or wealthier.

Obama a centrist?

I can only speak as to what the man has said (because he hasn't actually ever done anything), but nothing sounds remotely centrist. His entire campaign premise is essentially class warfare ( I will only raise taxes on those with high incomes), and the man promotes his associations with every marxist he could find according to his own writings.

Your own arguments betray a very left leaning economic platform, which may color your view on what constitutes a centrist. Why exactly should he have to justify his arguments about why he shouldn't give more money to the government to those who make less than him? Of course people who make less want people who make more to give more money. The fact that we care when making public policy is 90% of what's wrong with America today.

Your whole last paragraph also doesn't make a whole lot of sense. No one is promoting or not promoting retail labor. Manufacturing is largely being driven out by the fact that we have a higher minimum wage than the places that it's going. The Federal Government has no real constitutional authority to take anything but a Laissez Faire position on public education, as public education is the purview of state and local governments. The US also has the highest percentage college educated population on earth. We have one of the top 5 median (not mean, but median) incomes on earth. We also have a lower unemployment rate within the financial crisis than many of the countries we are seeking to emulate do during normal times.

 

[drfunktacular]

Your own arguments betray a very left leaning economic platform, which may color your view on what constitutes a centrist. Why exactly should he have to justify his arguments about why he shouldn't give more money to the government to those who make less than him? Of course people who make less want people who make more to give more money. The fact that we care when making public policy is 90% of what's wrong with America today.

Obama's to the left of you, Miami_Med, and to the right of lovepark. Which sounds like... the center. You're pretty aggressively conservative from your posts in the last few days (NTTAWWT). I think a lot of conservatives in the US make the mistake of thinking of the US as a "center-right" country, as the talking heads love to call it. You call lovepark "left-leaning" as though he's an extreme fringe liberal, whose views are unrepresentative of the country at large. The fact is, there is a significant upswelling of left-leaning sentiment in the country, and Obama's election reflects this. So to call any economic views to the left of Grover Norquist "leftist" as if there's no center, in my opinion, is at least a tactical mistake; and in fact it's a mistake whose folly is currently displayed by the utter failure of the Republican power structure. They went down with the ship thinking everyone in the country still shares their views, but they don't. In the current debate over conservatism's future, if the "Bush wasn't conservative enough" faction wins out (see Palin), the real bloodbath will come in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Of course, Obama's presidency could be an utter failure, and drive the center back to the right. But I haven't yet seen any indication of that happening.

 

[Miami_med]

Obama's to the left of you, Miami_Med, and to the right of lovepark. Which sounds like... the center. You're pretty aggressively conservative from your posts in the last few days (NTTAWWT). I think a lot of conservatives in the US make the mistake of thinking of the US as a "center-right" country, as the talking heads love to call it. You call lovepark "left-leaning" as though he's an extreme fringe liberal, whose views are unrepresentative of the country at large. The fact is, there is a significant upswelling of left-leaning sentiment in the country, and Obama's election reflects this. So to call any economic views to the left of Grover Norquist "leftist" as if there's no center, in my opinion, is at least a tactical mistake; and in fact it's a mistake whose folly is currently displayed by the utter failure of the Republican power structure. They went down with the ship thinking everyone in the country still shares their views, but they don't. In the current debate over conservatism's future, if the "Bush wasn't conservative enough" faction wins out (see Palin), the real bloodbath will come in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Of course, Obama's presidency could be an utter failure, and drive the center back to the right. But I haven't yet seen any indication of that happening.

I am not a conservative, and I am certainly not a republican. Outside of some social issues, it would really be hard to call anything the republicans do conservative. This is especially true economically. The support of a progressive tax structure, deficit spending, expansion of government beauracracy, and a transition of economic control to the feds from the states is clearly NOT conservative from an economic perspective. It seems like everyone makes the argument that how we set up the marginal tax rate within the progressive tax structure is the only way to define economic conservativism. It's this charade that has had the country arguing largely about mostly irrelevant changes to the tax code instead of the much bigger issues that drive the economy. All of that said, if you assume that I voted for the current presidents last term, you would be mistaken.

The current failures in the economy are not a failure of conservativism (as though the country were divided evenly into conservative (republican) and liberal (democrat)). That is utterly simplistic. I might make the argument that the current failures within the economy were brought about by how NOT conservative the republicans actually were. A decrease in marginal tax rates by 3% and the slow out-phasing of inheritance taxation are nothing compared the extreme deficit spending, federal regulation, government nationalization of pieces of the financial industry, intrusion into the mortgage industry by implicit (and the explicit) taxpayer support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the bailout, and excessive printing of Fiat money that propped up a tech bubble, a housing bubble, and a short commodities bubble. Government support of failing industry is NOT conservative. Government promotion of certain large industries is NOT conservative. I've personally been writing about these failures both on this forum and within my personal blog for years. In this case, I am a fan of capitalism, which is clearly NOT republicanism in this country and longer (as though it ever was).

I do think that you will be disappointed however. With Nancy Pelosi (the true author of the $700 bailout) and Barrack Obama (the man to whom GM will eventually be successfully received in their quest for billions of taxpayer dollars with the support of the UAW) running the show, there will be plenty of corporate welfare to go around. We'll tax economically successful wealthy people (who are actively holding up the economy) and give it to wealthy people who are losing money. We'll bail out everyone who did anything stupid over the last 8 years with the remaining money in the hands of people who did not. There will be some token money given to people who don't deserve it, we'll give more American money away to foreigners (while running a huge deficit at home), and life in Washington will go on as usual.

Obama's election is not some upswelling of left leaning america. He won because the economy is currently bad. When the economy is bad, the other guy wins. Reagan won on Carter's bad economy. Clinton won on Bush's bad economy. Bush II won on Clinton's floundering economy at the end over Gore. Bush II won a second term because despite widescale opposition to his policy, the economy was still good. Obama won because the economy is bad. If it's bad in 2012, we'll all be talking about the upswelling of right leaning America. Most people have no comprehension of policy, and the simply vote against whichever direction has been hurting their wallets.