Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[Churchill]

So where do you propose we get the money to pay off our tremendous debt, and show me how you can actually vote for this proposal.

I'll respond to this later, taxes really have nothing to do with it or a need to change.

[Deejay]

And since when have companies been shutting down branches over tax hikes? I mean sure, a % of a really big number is another big number, but higher taxes doesn't really effect them as much as people are assuming.

[Xno Kappa]

Doesn't benefit all the workers that will be laid off either through profit saving layoffs or when companies move their operations overseas.

Look at Ireland, they cut corporate taxes, it boosted their economy. They have the one of, if not the highest per capita GDP in europe now.

If you want to cherry-pick numbers, why not look at Norway, a European country with even higher GDP per capita than Ireland. Oh wait, that wouldn't work for you, since Norway has substantially higher corporate taxes.

Beat me to it lol.

[Suited Aces]

If you want to cherry-pick numbers, why not look at Norway, a European country with even higher GDP per capita than Ireland. Oh wait, that wouldn't work for you, since Norway has substantially higher corporate taxes.

Doesn't change the fact that when Ireland cut corp. taxes, their economy got a boost. I don't remember saying that was the one and only way to increase GDP.

I was just pointing out an example that proved that lowering taxes has worked, if Obama wins we will see if the converse is true. Although I doubt it.

[Sera]

the entire idea of a flat tax that gets everyone by the same percentage is stupid. DianaraVP summed it up better than I can, so I'll just quote him:

It benefits rich people. If I have 10 dollars and I give you one dollar, that hurts. If I have 100,000,000 dollars and I give you 100,000, its not going to hurt as bad. Yes, they are proportionate, but they are not equal by any means. That is the thing about flat taxes, it seems like its fair, but its not. Don't get me wrong, I have money, I would love not to give money to the government, but it's not right. Under such a tax structure, lower income people pay a higher portion of their total income in taxes than the rich do. It's bullshit. 10% of what my family makes would most likely be the entire income of your family in a year. So I'm paying more money, but you are paying a larger total of your income.

Also:

Doesn't change the fact that when Ireland cut corp. taxes, their economy got a boost. I don't remember saying that was the one and only way to increase GDP.

I was just pointing out an example that proved that lowering taxes has worked, if Obama wins we will see if the converse is true. Although I doubt it.

Uhh... he just showed you a case in which it DID and DOES work...

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Not enough to fix our problems, and would cause its own problems. But let's stick to our real options for president: McCain and Obama. Show me how McCain's plan will get us out of our insane debt.

127 Billion dollars for 100 years would get us out of debt, I think. No one's plan will get us out of debt. By the year 2050 something were going to be 74 billion dollars in debt, I think. We're going to be in debt for as long as we exist.

[Day]

I'm not super smart or even close to it, but I believe the idea is to put money into the hands of the working/middle class to be able to spend to keep those big and small businesses going. Your consumers go broke, your company is going to go under.... that's how I interpret the plan anyways.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Doesn't change the fact that when Ireland cut corp. taxes, their economy got a boost. I don't remember saying that was the one and only way to increase GDP.

I was just pointing out an example that proved that lowering taxes has worked, if Obama wins we will see if the converse is true. Although I doubt it.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...in_higher.html

Corporate income taxes, however, may be an exception[To tax cuts not paying for themselves]. There is some evidence that cutting the corporate tax rate can produce more revenue than was projected under the higher rate in the special case of multinational corporations, which can move their money and operations around to take advantage of lower taxes in certain countries. Economists with the pro-business American Enterprise Institute came to that conclusion in a study released in July 2007. They found that lower corporate rates attract enough growth in corporate income to produce higher government revenues. However, one of the authors, Kevin A. Hassett, told FactCheck.org that small countries, such as Ireland, had the most success and that "it may or may not be correct" to apply the study's results to the United States.

tl;dr: One of the 2 authors of the Ireland study says is may or may not be applicable to the US.

[Stiker]

127 Billion dollars for 100 years would get us out of debt, I think. No one's plan will get us out of debt. By the year 2050 something were going to be 74 billion dollars in debt, I think. We're going to be in debt for as long as we exist.

It isn't about getting us out of debt. It is about not digging us into a bigger hole for the next four years like we have been doing for the last eight.

[Kaelas]

Yes big business is there to make money, but you know what, layoffs should be a move of last resort, although nowadays it seems to be a more common place practice to ensure profits for the execs when things go to hell.

Take the airline industry for example. Damn near every airline is losing money left and right, raising ticket prices, adding on fees to passengers, and laying people off regularly. However, despite this shit show, Southwest airlines is still continuously making a solid profit and without the aforementioned steps. That is an example of a better business plan put into action for profit.

Yes, I realize things can go to hell, it happens. Saying that closing the tax loopholes that big business have been jumping through will only cause more problems is a major delusion. Until I start hearing news of CEOs and execs of big business across the nation taking major pay cuts to ensure the profitability of their businesses before they layoff everyone else, you won't be seeing a bit of pity out of me. With all the news of these layoffs, you still hear about execs making huge profits, and that is a highly fucked up situation.

I agree 100% that these CEO's need to have some sort penalty/investigation levied on them for taking 20-30 million a year salaries while their business is in the red and they just cut 10,000 jobs. That's highly fucked up and needs to be fixed.

But that brings us back to "How do you control the CEO?" I personally believe taxing the business more is just going to make the situation worse. Incentives for the business as a whole are good but it does nothing to solve this problem.

It seems to me that this just a fundamental flaw of our economic structure. You either have a "free" society or you institute more government control. Which of those is the lesser of two evils? I may be way off on this but that's just how I'm seeing things on this issue.

[Beckwin]

Kaelas: big mischaracterization when you say "taxing them even higher"... you realize that their taxes were LOWERED by Bush very early on in his administration... and look where we are now. Obama, for the most part, plans to set things back to Clinton levels (and talk about that prosperity; crediting Reagan for something that lasted all the way till the end of Clinton's term is disingenous to say the least btw), and also has expressed his desire to create tax breaks for companies that create jobs/employ domestically- something I've long thought makes sense.

Obama's version of the internet/tech boom is likely going to be the energy boom. A boom plus good progressive taxation policy = gravy train. Bush only stimulated the profits of stagnant industries while effecting a lower level of prosperity for the middle class over 8 years, amplified by the weakening of the dollar which has much to do with outrageous defecit spending and low international confidence.

Anyways, 20 years in the pews of anti-semetic garbage:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...ewish-ter.html

loooooooooooooool palin.

[Suited Aces]

Uhh... he just showed you a case in which it DID and DOES work...

Not doing the research but when did Norway increase their taxes. Also comparing Norway with Ireland or the US is not really the same thing. As i said Ireland was an example, i never said it was the rule.

[Xno Kappa]

Kaelas: big mischaracterization when you say "taxing them even higher"... you realize that their taxes were LOWERED by Bush very early on in his administration... and look where we are now. Obama, for the most part, plans to set things back to Clinton levels (and talk about that prosperity; crediting Reagan for something that lasted all the way till the end of Clinton's term is disingenous to say the least btw), and also has expressed his desire to create tax breaks for companies that create jobs/employ domestically- something I've long thought makes sense.

Obama's version of the internet/tech boom is likely going to be the energy boom. A boom plus good progressive taxation policy = gravy train. Bush only stimulated the profits of stagnant industries while effecting a lower level of prosperity for the middle class over 8 years, amplified by the weakening of the dollar which has much to do with outrageous defecit spending and low international confidence.

Anyways, 20 years in the pews of anti-semetic garbage:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...ewish-ter.html

loooooooooooooool palin.

Not surprising since this is the same person who idolizes Pat Buchanan.

[Beckwin]

oh and specifically on the corporate tax... Obama has no plans to raise it, according to the chart. lol.

he might close the loopholes that allow a large percentage of businesses to simply not pay it at all though.

[Sera]

Not surprising since this is the same person who idolizes Pat Buchanan.

And wasn't it he who said McCain would "make Cheney look like Gandhi"?

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/...gandhi-mccain/

[Tyche]

So where do you propose we get the money to pay off our tremendous debt, and show me how you can actually vote for this proposal.

I don't know if you are getting debt and deficit mixed up, but the government will never get out of debt. They use debt to help control the economy. When they issue bonds, that's calculated into debt. Getting completely out of debt would strip the feds of their ability to manipulate the economy in forms of interest rates and such. Getting completely out of debt isn't exactly a good thing unless you believe we should reform the way the fed controls the economy.

[Kaelas]

Thank you for making that clear Beckwin.

[Maxxthepenguin]

I don't know if you are getting debt and deficit mixed up, but the government will never get out of debt. They use debt to help control the economy. When they issue bonds, that's calculated into debt. Getting completely out of debt would strip the feds of their ability to manipulate the economy in forms of interest rates and such. Getting completely out of debt isn't exactly a good thing unless you believe we should reform the way the fed controls the economy.

That was just a crossed wire in my head >_> I meant deficit.

[Olo401]

127 Billion dollars for 100 years would get us out of debt, I think. No one's plan will get us out of debt. By the year 2050 something were going to be 74 billion dollars in debt, I think. We're going to be in debt for as long as we exist.

Umm.. dude this country is well over $9 trillion in debt. 74 Billion barely covers six months' cost of the war.

[Beckwin]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/
Palin_answers_on_abortion_gay_marriage_scrubbed_fr om_conservative_website.html

yeah, so palin's stances on social issues have been scrubbed from her official web presence, including the infamous "under God" being part of the Founding Fathers' version of the Pledge.