I don't want taxes to be LOWERED for the guy making 600,000 dollars, I want it to stay the same. Barack wants to balance the cuts to the lower classes by raising them for the rich. I think they should cut lower income tax rates and leave the higher tax brackets the same.

I'm just splitting hairs here.

I HATE the fact that the FED is making us pay for the mistakes of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. I didn't default on my loan. More importantly, I didn't buy loans that were high risk. This is a terrible solution. All they are doing is sticking a band-aid on it so that the next president will have to deal with it.

I would say that I have a conservative view on the economy, except that every republican President for the past 20 years has broken his campaign promises when it comes to the economy. I'm torn between voting for somebody based on what they say they're going to do, and what the party has traditionally done once in office. If the republicans would keep their economic promises, I'd be 100% behind them. I just don't know what to believe anymore. I do think the eonomy thrives when most things are left up to the market. The gov't doesn't need to pour money into the economy every time there is a lull.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Sounds like we're essentially in agreement about drilling -- I think we'll need to do it eventually, but I think the longer we put it off, the better off we are, not only environmentally, but also with regard to what kind of returns our country can get for it.

About taxes, I'm not really worried about the guy making $600,000, but only winding up with $300,000 after taxes.

I'm very worried about people with less than $50,000, and moderately worried about people with less than $100,000.

Can you really justify asking more from people making $45,000/yr, in order to let the $600,000 income guy keep another $100,000 in taxes?

Republicans & supply siders always say "well, people with huge money hire people with their excess money"...well, so does the government, and while there's more than a little corruption, what's called corruption in government is often called "rewarding success" in the corporate world.

Past a certain point, people are just using their wealth for investments, and while there's an argument to be made about those investments helping the economy, the economy also just got saved by a government take over of Fannie & Freddie that puts the failures of these supposedly infallible investors on the backs of taxpayers.

I didn't benefit from the boom (I don't have real estate investments), why should I bear more of the burden from the bust?

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
You're absolutely right to criticize those who promise lower gas prices in exchange for leasing federal land to oil companies. It's a lie.



I don't agree with that large of an increase in tax on individuals earning more than $600,000. Their taxes would increase by more than $100,000 up to $700,000. That's a potential 19-24% increase from what is already the highest tax bracket. He's only proposing an additional cut, at the most, of $75 per month less than what McCain's tax plan is (that's only for one bracket). Whose plan is more fair in my opinion?

I believe that people earning below $30,000 should only have to pay a minimal tax, but I don't believe that others should have to pay 40-50% tax, regardless of how much they earn. It's just not right.

Sounds like we're essentially in agreement about drilling -- I think we'll need to do it eventually, but I think the longer we put it off, the better off we are, not only environmentally, but also with regard to what kind of returns our country can get for it.

About taxes, I'm not really worried about the guy making $600,000, but only winding up with $300,000 after taxes.

I'm very worried about people with less than $50,000, and moderately worried about people with less than $100,000.

Can you really justify asking more from people making $45,000/yr, in order to let the $600,000 income guy keep another $100,000 in taxes?

Republicans & supply siders always say "well, people with huge money hire people with their excess money"...well, so does the government, and while there's more than a little corruption, what's called corruption in government is often called "rewarding success" in the corporate world.

Past a certain point, people are just using their wealth for investments, and while there's an argument to be made about those investments helping the economy, the economy also just got saved by a government take over of Fannie & Freddie that puts the failures of these supposedly infallible investors on the backs of taxpayers.

I didn't benefit from the boom (I don't have real estate investments), why should I bear more of the burden from the bust?

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
You're absolutely right to criticize those who promise lower gas prices in exchange for leasing federal land to oil companies. It's a lie.



I don't agree with that large of an increase in tax on individuals earning more than $600,000. Their taxes would increase by more than $100,000 up to $700,000. That's a potential 19-24% increase from what is already the highest tax bracket. He's only proposing an additional cut, at the most, of $75 per month less than what McCain's tax plan is (that's only for one bracket). Whose plan is more fair in my opinion?

I believe that people earning below $30,000 should only have to pay a minimal tax, but I don't believe that others should have to pay 40-50% tax, regardless of how much they earn. It's just not right.

You're absolutely right to criticize those who promise lower gas prices in exchange for leasing federal land to oil companies. It's a lie.



I don't agree with that large of an increase in tax on individuals earning more than $600,000. Their taxes would increase by more than $100,000 up to $700,000. That's a potential 19-24% increase from what is already the highest tax bracket. He's only proposing an additional cut, at the most, of $75 per month less than what McCain's tax plan is (that's only for one bracket). Whose plan is more fair in my opinion?

I believe that people earning below $30,000 should only have to pay a minimal tax, but I don't believe that others should have to pay 40-50% tax, regardless of how much they earn. It's just not right.


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
To be honest, the few Democrats I see arguing in favor of drilling are making that point -- use the extra oil to right trade imbalances. They're also suggesting nationalizing the oil and sell it on the world market to reduce the national debt.

However, Republicans are trying to tell people that drilling for oil giving the individual states the rights to lease environmentally sensitive lands to oil companies will result in cheap gas prices, and that's just not true.

As an aside, did you review that study from the Tax Policy Center? Someone's put up an Obama Tax Cut Calculator to let people gauge their likely tax cut under Obama's plan.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Every little bit of anything we produce in this country and sell to another will help our trade deficit, and help the to strengthen the dollar. If Alaska drills oil and sells it to California, it will boost the Alaskan economy. If they sell it to China, it'll count towards our incredibly large trade deficit to China.

Win-win situation. There are many more benefits that can result from drilling and refining more oil in this country than just the local price of gasoline.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner: