I disagree, see i’m not using twisted logic, what I have stated is true, we had higher overall taxes with clinton, and yet growth was stronger than it is now as was job growth, as was revenue, so you can have higher taxes, revenue and growth. Now the argument of the republicans is that lower taxes will generate more revenues and that tax cuts will pay for themselves, while generating growth, however that is not true, as a share of GDP our revenues are far below what they were under clinton and we have been running consistent deficits, with weak job growth, so tax cuts in general are not a good way to generate economic growth.

Now on the issue of capital gains tax in particular, the argument is that there is a rise in revenue from the cut, which should not be taken away i the name of fairness, this is somewhat true, there is a small rise, however as people use capital gains to avoid paying the higher income tax rate, there is lost revenue, and my point is that you can alter it to capture that revenue, while still generating investment, and the key is altering the capital gains tax, which is currently 15% for all but the two lowest brackets, by having a base tax on all income, and then taxing the largest investors the most, at a rate higher than the current 15% while taxing small investors a limited amount or no tax at all. You’d make more revenue off of the bigger investors, the ones who would invest even at higher tax rates, while you’d incentivize more people to invest since they would be more likely to keep more of their profits. Hence you’d have the revenue, the fairness and the investment

Superdelegates remaining undecided should be left alone and independent to decide which candidate to support.

They should take all the time they need ….

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/04/superdelegates- independence-of-vote.html

So no the capital gains tax as it is is not a sufficient reason to justify tax cuts, now a revamped system where all income regardless of form, was taxed and then profits off of investements were taxed in a progressive system would work better, sure we shouldn’t have to tax those small investors the 1/5 as you say make less than 50K very much, but the large investors should be taxed based on their investments and profits.

So yeah Obama was caught flatfooted on that question no doubt about it a knock on him, but he is right that the system can be made more fair while still incentivizing investment, he just didn’t know how. We tax the investments of the rich more than the smaller investors, and this way people can’t escape paying taxes so we’d make more revenue.

Also we’ve already seen that raising taxes does nothing to halt growth, especially when the taxes are progressive and target the rich without affecting the middle class, plus revenues are higher.

Basically as i’ve said progressive taxes are the way to go.

MR. GIBSON: …But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

Obama’s response that it was still “fair” because rich people make a lot of money:

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.

Obama goes on about how we need more money for schools and infrastructure, and that we have to much debt. But Charlie calls him on this obvious mistake (since you pay for those programs with tax revenue) by saying:

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

Obama then becomes totally evasive:

Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going. I think the biggest problem that we’ve got on Wall Street right now is the fact that we’ve got a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right.

Do you get the point now Avinash? History shows when you lower tax rates on Capital gains, actual revenue goes up. The same revenue which reduces deficits and pays for schools and social programs.

Obama has clearly showed that he would rather sacrifice that extra revenue he claims would be required to fund government programs and pay down the debt for the mere principle of “fairness” - which simply means arbitrarily taking money away from “the rich.” Its not even wealth redistribution, as you would expect from socialists like Barack. It is wealth destruction!!!

Besides, its 1/3 of the U.S. population who would end up losing money and gaining nothing back in the form of government tax-funded programs. They’re obviously not all “rich” people. In fact, 20% of all Capital gains are payed for by people who make less than $50,000/year!!

How can you possibly justify this?

So much for the socialists bankrupting the nation, lol, if anything its the dems keeping this country standing

Twopositive years out of eight, years where we were above the historical average and those positive years weren’t even close to what we had in the clinton years with higher taxes, not to mention we had more years over the average with Clinton and higher revenues, that’s right higher taxes and more revenue, imagine that, so rasing taxes doesn’t hurt revenues, or growth, oh Jimmy your arguments have big holes, more taxes and yet higher revenue and powerful economic growth, more jobs also, while under Bush’s tax cuts we had declining revenues and even in the positive years we had weak revenues when compared to the Clinton years, and pathetic job growth. I thought you were saying that higher taxes would hurt grwoth, but that’s false, and lower taxes would make the economy grow fast and pay for themselves, but that’s also false, Bush has us with a 400-500 billion dollar deficit this year and McSame is planning to add another 300 billion to it.

So tell me why anyone should support your ideas of tax breaks when tax breaks did not generate a substantial gain in tax revenues, nor generate job growth, in fact tax revenues as a percent of GDP plummeted, yet under Clinton’s higher taxes we had awesome job growth and higher tax revenue and balanced budgets, yeah you’ve heard that word, its something cons like you like to talk about but it takes a dem to do it. Tell me why we shouldn’t tax the rich?

Yeah Obama wants to tax the rich, it worked well for Clinton, we had the best economy in decades, Bush cut taxes or the rich and the economy has been crap, the jobless recovery they called it, now its just jobless, i’ll take taxing the rich for 9 trillion Jimmy.

Anyway, It doesn’t matter, does it? Because your guy Obama promised he will tax your retirement plan an extra 100% more, even if it results in a loss of revenue for social programs - simply because his Majesty Barack has arbitrarily decided that rich people earn too much money when they invest in America.

These latest endorsements are just another bunch of panderers trying to get in with who they think the eventual nominee will be. They are after post election favors.

I have had it with the democratic party. This primary is a farce.

Yeah the tax cuts have done a great job our tax revenues have fallen, as a share of GDP they are well below what they were in 2000, wasn’t tax cuts supposed to generate greater revenues?

There is possibly no more terrifying prospect than this in the current election cycle. All three remaining candidates have mouthed it — heck, it’s practically McCain’s religion.

I don’t want to be an active participant in politics! I don’t want anything to do with politics — I want politics to stay the heck away!

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/images/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-C2-Government-Spending-Grew-Faster.gif

yes the party of fiscal conservatism indeed

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/images/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-C3-All-Recent-Administrations-Ran-Up.gif

Yup the tax cuts have stimulated our economy so much its takne seven years to get back to old levels

yeah nice job that cut in taxes, really helped

Its hard for me to believe that Robert “Walmart is good for America” Reich is making this endorsement based on Barack’s wise economic judgment; rather, I think he is jumping on the bandwagon to get this thing over with and stop the damage to his beloved Democratic party, while endorsing the candidate with the best chance to beat McCain, even if it is for superficial reasons.