Who'll be the better president?

[DaMulta]

Time for a review here. Here's the graphic Damulta posted earlier to show how Republican Presidents are responsible for increases in national debt.

In fact, it's not the President that determines the spending and borrowing habits of the US but the Senate.

This chart shows the whole picture combining the Presidents with the Senate. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

When you look at it the result is pretty interesting. For every red bar on the graph you will see the democrats controlled the house.

The exceptions are 2001 - 2006. The reasons for this are debatable and include things like, the war(s) and the impact of the previous 44 years of democrat spending finally catching up to us. There have also been some changes in how the national debt is calculated that have an impact on the numbers.

There has also been, as was previously mentioned, a trend among republicans to be significantly more liberal then they have typically been in the past.

Regardless of who is responsible for the US incurring all this debt, I fail to see anyone making it a point to reduce it. The most common campaign message has been about tax cuts and the second most common set of messages can be lumped into a group called tax spending. These things would include health care, education, war and anything else that has a price tag.

A good example would be the bailout of high level lending institutions. The general consensus is that giving them money will not fix the situation in the long term. The money they will receive will actually be printed (or generated electronically). That simply adds more money to the system which lowers the overall value of all money, not just what they were given.

This is the definition of inflation.

If tax breaks are offered above and beyond what already exists the national income will go down. Basically the nation will get a pay cut.

Now when you as an individual get a pay cut you will typically decrease your spending. In the case of the nation, both sides are talking about improving education, health care and a whole host of other things.

I'm curious to know how they plan to do this with less money than what is already being spent to get what we already have. Obviously that's not a sustainable plan and at some point the government will have to stop spending as much money as it does. They will have to do so without reducing the tax we pay if we are ever going to get caught up on our bills.

It's just as simple as that and I don't see how it can be any other way.

For every red bar on the graph you will see the democrats controlled the house.

01-06 was republican only
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/weird-republican-beliefs/

John McCain,

“We had a chance to change government and it changed us,” McCain said. “We didn’t lose the election in 2006 because of Iraq, we lost it because the Republican majority allowed the largest increase in spending since the Great Society.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

New major spending programs that addressed education, medical care, urban problems, and transportation were launched during this period. The Great Society in scope and sweep resembled the New Deal domestic agenda of Franklin D. Roosevelt, but differed sharply in types of programs enacted.

In fact, back in 1942, a call for what amounted to a “maximum wage” actually came from the President of the United States. President Franklin D. Roosevelt that year asked Congress to impose a 100% tax on all individual income over $25,000, the equivalent of about $300,000 today, after adjusting for inflation.

FDR didn't get his 100% top tax rate. But he did get Congress to pass a 94% top tax rate on all income over $200,000. And America's top tax rate on high incomes would hover around 90% for the next two decades, years that would see unprecedented economic prosperity for average American families.

Those high tax rates on high incomes FDR inspired have disappeared. In 1943, the very richest Americans paid 78% of their total incomes in federal income tax. In 2003, by contrast, our very richest Americans paid a mere 17.5% of their total incomes in federal tax

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States

Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments. Top marginal tax rates stayed near or above 90% until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% in 1982 and eventually to 28% in 1988. However, in the intervening years Congress subsequently increased the top marginal tax rate to 35% (the top marginal tax rate as of 2007).

Dem president/rest don't know 94% (on all income over $200,000) in 1945

Total Democrat control Until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%.
1964 16% 1,000 77% 400,000

Republican President, Republican Senate Democrat Congress 1982 lowered to 50%
1982 12% 2,100 50% 106,000

Beginning in 1975, a refundable earned-income credit is allowed for low-income individuals.
applies to the 12%

Republican president Senate Democrat Congress 1988 lowered to 28%
15% 29,750 28% 29,750

the 28%
The benefit of the first rate bracket is eliminated by an increased rate above certain thresholds. The phase-out range of the benefit of the first rate bracket was as follows: Taxable income between $71,900 and $149,250 in 1988; taxable income between $74,850 and $155,320 in 1989; and taxable income between $78,400 and $162,770 in 1990. The phase-out of the benefit the first rate bracket was repealed for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1990. This added 5 percentage points to the marginal rate for those by the phaseout, producing a 33 percent effective rate.

Republican president Democrat/divided Senate/Congress 2007 upped to 35%

At first the income tax was incrementally expanded by the Congress of the United States, and then inflation automatically raised most persons into tax brackets formerly reserved for the wealthy until income tax brackets were adjusted for inflation. Income tax now applies to almost two-thirds of the population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_United_States

Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters, through the enumerated power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." (power of the purse) The Sixteenth Amendment extended power of taxation to include income taxes.[7] The Constitution also gives Congress power over appropriating funds, with all government spending required to be included in congressional appropriations. This power is an important way for Congress to keep the executive branch in check.[7] Other powers granted to Congress include the authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States, regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states, and coin money.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/10/bailout_instead_double_the_top.html

Between 1929 and 1932 the American economy was in free fall. Economic growth, as measured by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) adjusted for inflation, averaged a minus (-) 10.4% per year. The top bracket tax rate was 25%.[/B]

In 1932 the top bracket tax rate was increased to 63%. The economy turned around; the average annual growth rate between 1933 and 1936 was 7.0%.

In 1936 the top bracket tax rate was increased to 79% and for the next 29 years the top bracket rate remained above 75%. During that time the average annual growth rate was 6.0%.

Then we began cutting top bracket taxes, from 90% in 1964 down to 28% in 1988 (at the same time continuously increasing the Social Security tax, a regressive tax). In the three year time period before the tax cutting began (1962-64) the economy grew at 5.1% per year, and in the three year time period after the cuts ended (1989-1991) the economy grew at 1.7% per year.

The top bracket tax rate in 2007 for "Single" and "Married Filing Jointly . . ." was 35% on income over $349,700.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_income_20080826
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Recovery_Tax_Act_of_1981

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (also known as ERTA or the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut) was "A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to encourage economic growth through reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses, and incentives for savings, and for other purpose." Pub.L. 97-34, 95 Stat. 172, enacted August 13, 1981) It also reduced marginal income tax rates in the United States by 25% over three years (the top rate falling from 70% to 50% while the bottom rate dropped from 14% to 11%) and indexed the rates for inflation, though the indexing was delayed until 1985. Its sponsors, Representative Jack Kemp and Senator William Roth, had hoped for more significant tax cuts, but settled on this bill after a great debate in Congress. It passed Congress on August 4, 1981 and was signed into law on August 13, 1981 by President Ronald Reagan at his California ranch.

In 2003 (revised 2006), the United States Department of the Treasury released a non-partisan economic study[1] showing the effect on government revenues of all Reagan-era tax bills. As the chart shows, the 1981 tax act produced a major loss in government revenues (almost 3% of GDP), in marked contrast to other Reagan-era tax bills, which had neutral or even revenue-gathering effects.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
Government site

The Bush Tax Cut

By 2001, the total tax take had produced a projected unified budget surplus of $281 billion, with a cumulative 10 year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion. Much of this surplus reflected a rising tax burden as a share of GDP due to the interaction of rising real incomes and a progressive tax rate structure. Consequently, under President George W. Bush's leadership the Congress halted the projected future increases in the tax burden by passing the Economic Growth and Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2001. The centerpiece of the 2001 tax cut was to regain some of the ground lost in the 1990s in terms of lower marginal tax rates. Though the rate reductions are to be phased in over many years, ultimately the top tax rate will fall from 39.6 percent to 33 percent.

The 2001 tax cut represented a resumption of a number of other trends in tax policy. For example, it expanded the Per Child Tax credit from $500 to $1000 per child. It also increased the Dependent Child Tax credit. The 2001 tax cut also continued the move toward a consumption tax by expanding a variety of savings incentives. Another feature of the 2001 tax cut that is particularly noteworthy is that it put the estate, gift, and generation-skipping taxes on course for eventual repeal, which is also another step toward a consumption tax. One novel feature of the 2001 tax cut compared to most large tax bills is that it was almost devoid of business tax provisions.

The 2001 tax cut will provide additional strength to the economy in the coming years as more and more of its provisions are phased in, and indeed one argument for its enactment had always been as a form of insurance against an economic downturn. However, unbeknownst to the Bush Administration and the Congress, the economy was already in a downturn as the Act was being debated. Thankfully, the downturn was brief and shallow, but it is already clear that the tax cuts that were enacted and went into effect in 2001 played a significant role in supporting the economy, shortening the duration of the downturn, and preparing the economy for a robust recovery.

One lesson from the economic slowdown was the danger of ever taking a strong economy for granted. The strong growth of the 1990s led to talk of a "new" economy that many assumed was virtually recession proof. The popularity of this assumption was easy to understand when one considers that there had only been one very mild recession in the previous 18 years.

Taking this lesson to heart, and despite the increasing benefits of the 2001 tax cut and the early signs of a recovery, President Bush called for and the Congress eventually enacted an economic stimulus bill. The bill included an extension of unemployment benefits to assist those workers and families under financial stress due to the downturn. The bill also included a provision to providing a temporary but significant acceleration of depreciation allowances for business investment, thereby assuring that the recovery and expansion will be strong and balanced. Interestingly, the depreciation provision also means that the Federal tax on business has resumed its evolution toward a consumption tax, once again paralleling the trend in individual taxation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_tax

A consumption tax is a tax on the income or expenditure for goods and services. The term refers to a system with a tax base of consumption, and can be structured like a pure sales tax, value added tax, or as an income tax that excludes investment.[1] For this reason, the tax can be called a consumption tax, a cash-flow tax, an expenditure tax, or a consumed-income tax, to name a few. Since consumption taxes are argued by many to be inherently regressive on income, many proposals make adjustments to decrease these effects. Using exemptions, graduated rates, deductions or rebates, a consumption tax can be made less regressive or progressive, while allowing savings to accumulate tax-free.[2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_tax
Economics

Former senior editor of Fortune Magazine Al Ehrbar notes that proponents of a consumption tax argue its superiority to the income tax based on an economic principle called "temporal neutrality".[8] He observes that a tax is "neutral" if it does not "alter spending habits or behavior patterns and thus does not distort the allocation of resources." In other words, taxing apples but not oranges will cause apple consumption to decrease and orange consumption to increase. The temporal neutrality of a consumption tax, however, is that consumption itself is taxed, so it is irrelevant what good or service is being consumed in terms of allocation of resources. The only possible effect on neutrality is between consumption and savings. Taxing only consumption should, in theory, cause an increase in savings.[2] William Gale, Co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, offers a simplified way to understand a consumption tax: Assume that our current tax system remains the same, but remove limitations to contributing to and removing funds from a traditional IRA. Thus, a person would essentially have a bank account where they could place tax-free earnings at any time, but unsaved (or consumed) withdrawals would be subject to taxation. Having an unrestricted IRA under the current system would approximate a consumption tax at the federal level.

Economists and tax experts generally favor consumption taxes over income taxes for economic growth.[9][10][11] Consumption taxes are neutral with respect to investment.[2][10] Depending on implementation (such as treatment of depreciation) and circumstances, income taxes either favor or disfavor investment. (On the whole, the US system is thought to disfavor investment.[2]) By not disfavoring investment, a consumption tax might increase the capital stock, productivity, and therefore increase the size of the economy.[2][3] Consumption more closely tracks long run average income.[3] An individual or family's income often varies dramatically from year to year. The sale of a home, a one time job bonus, and various other events can lead to temporary high income that will push a low or middle income person into a high tax bracket. On the other hand, a wealthy individual may be temporarily unemployed and will pay no taxes.

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/10/31/democrats-beat-republicans-25-1-in-stock-market-returns/

Democrats beat Republicans 25:1 in stock market returns
I realize that it's not a reason to pick a president, but if you care about your stock portfolio, you'd be better off with a Democratic president. How so? Peter Siris of Guerrilla Capital has run some numbers -- comparing an investment of $10,000 in the S&P 500 under Republican administrations to the same investment under Democratic ones. He permitted me to preview these numbers which will run in his New York Post column on November 3rd.

Since 1929 both parties have controlled the White House for 40 years and Siris estimates that the $10,000 would be worth $11,733 under Republican administrations and $300,671 under Democratic ones. According to Siris, "for whatever reason, Republicans have been in office during the three worst stock market declines: The Great Depression, the early to mid-1970s, and the current market."

That may sound interesting but what about recent presidents? Under the Clinton administration, the S&P 500 rose the most in the last 60 years -- up an average of 17.4% per year. The only president who posted a negative performance is a familiar name -- George W. Bush -- under his administration, the S&P 500 has fallen 27% from 1,342 to 979. It's an exceptional record and one that I hope will never recur.

NEW YORK - Does the president affect your portfolio? Candidates would certainly like you to think that the answer is yes, and that the particular candidate doing the talking is better than the other guy.

Over the years, several studies have shown that the stock market has fared markedly better under Democrats than Republicans. (see: "The Presidential Portfolio") The difference, according to Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov, both professors at the University of California Los Angeles Anderson School of Business, is much too large to be random and cannot be explained by fluctuations in the business cycle. Nor can it be explained by higher interest rates in Republican administrations.

The UCLA professors looked at data going back to 1927. Our own study of the post-World War II presidencies confirms their results. We found that the S&P 500 has averaged a total return of 14.1% per year under Democratic presidents since April 1945, and 11.8% under Republicans. The best total returns--17.4% per year--were under Bill Clinton, whose presidency ranked first in economic results. (see: "Presidents And Prosperity") Gerald R. Ford ranks second, followed by Harry S. Truman.

http://money.cnn.com/2002/11/07/markets/republican_history/index.htm

After all the digging and digging it comes to this.......


That chart above is right, the president has the last word. It is no one but him that shows the national debt in the end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

The elected representatives of the United States share responsibility for making the decisions which bring about changes in the national debt. All spending bills start in the House of Representatives. It should be noted that oftentimes, the sitting President faces an opposition Congress.

 

[Palit_Guy]

Hmmm. Did this just turn into who can copy/paste the most amount of information in a single post?

 

[mdm-adph]

Hmmm. Did this just turn into who can copy/paste the most amount of information in a single post?

That's a political debate on the internet for you. Now it's your job to sift through the data and find points to counter.

I actually prefer religious debates -- since evidence means nothing to those of faith, religious debates tend to be more briefly worded, if somewhat more inflammatory.

 

[DaMulta]

Hmmm. Did this just turn into who can copy/paste the most amount of information in a single post?

Yep, but took a lot of digging lol

I don't do this for a living, but some of those people above do!

lol

 

[Odin Eidolon]

That's a political debate on the internet for you. Now it's your job to sift through the data and find points to counter.

I actually prefer religious debates -- since evidence means nothing to those of faith, religious debates tend to be more briefly worded, if somewhat more inflammatory.

rofl yeah, i agree.

damn DaMulta who made me re-subscribe to this thread! I unsubscribed cuz it took me too much time to read and answer to everything . Will this thread have an end ? Dont think that after the elections it will shut down.

 

[Tatty_Two]

rofl yeah, i agree.

damn DaMulta who made me re-subscribe to this thread! I unsubscribed cuz it took me too much time to read and answer to everything . Will this thread have an end ? Dont think that after the elections it will shut down.

I really do hope so, I need glasses since reading this thread! My money is on Obama (not a political persuasion, I just think he will win), I think most brits are shouting for Obama although not sure why, rumour has it that the UK labour party will never go to war with a republican president again so maybe it's a good thing.......unlesss of course the conservative's get in next time, which i doubt, this economic downturn is just strengthening Brown's position......funny, it's just the opposite in the US.

 

[cowie]

wow reading this list about the spending corelating as to witch"side".....its easy to see how clinton balanced the budget....all he had to do is ignore them blowing up our boat,25klbs of fertilizer under our big buildings...and blackhawk down.simple savings.

 

[SK-1]

The Graphs are cool and informative, but the Obama Salute Rules

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

 

[mdm-adph]

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

Bah -- you can't even tell if he's really giving anyone the finger or not.

You want to see a politician flip someone off? Here's President Bush giving his own version of that famous salute, and you can tell he means it, too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVynnbx1Xsc

 

[SK-1]

Bah -- you can't even tell if he's really giving anyone the finger or not.

I just need a little more Kool-Aid and I am sure I will see it like you

 

[magibeg]

I think DaMulta should get a prize for most information filled post in history. In all honesty because of the gravity of the situation with your own country everyone should probably be doing research like that to make the most informed decision possible.

"You shouldn't want a president you can sit and have a beer with. You should want one thats so damn smart you're afraid to open your mouth because he'll make you look stupid."

 

[ShadowFold]

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1888086

 

[trt740]

01-06 was republican only
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/weird-republican-beliefs/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society


.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States


Dem president/rest don't know 94% (on all income over $200,000) in 1945

Total Democrat control Until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%.
1964 16% 1,000 77% 400,000

Republican President, Republican Senate Democrat Congress 1982 lowered to 50%
1982 12% 2,100 50% 106,000

Beginning in 1975, a refundable earned-income credit is allowed for low-income individuals.
applies to the 12%

Republican president Senate Democrat Congress 1988 lowered to 28%
15% 29,750 28% 29,750

the 28%
The benefit of the first rate bracket is eliminated by an increased rate above certain thresholds. The phase-out range of the benefit of the first rate bracket was as follows: Taxable income between $71,900 and $149,250 in 1988; taxable income between $74,850 and $155,320 in 1989; and taxable income between $78,400 and $162,770 in 1990. The phase-out of the benefit the first rate bracket was repealed for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1990. This added 5 percentage points to the marginal rate for those by the phaseout, producing a 33 percent effective rate.

Republican president Democrat/divided Senate/Congress 2007 upped to 35%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_United_States


http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/10/bailout_instead_double_the_top.html

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_income_20080826
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Recovery_Tax_Act_of_1981


http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
Government site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_tax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_tax
Economics


http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/10/31/democrats-beat-republicans-25-1-in-stock-market-returns/





http://money.cnn.com/2002/11/07/markets/republican_history/index.htm

After all the digging and digging it comes to this.......


That chart above is right, the president has the last word. It is no one but him that shows the national debt in the end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

watch by Thursday the stock market will collapse.Weather it should or not most investors say if B.O. is elected, because of his stated tax plans, the market will lose faith and crash. We are gonna find out because he will win. All I can say is becareful what you wish for. Bend over investors here it comes.

 

[das müffin mann]

That's a political debate on the internet for you. Now it's your job to sift through the data and find points to counter.

I actually prefer religious debates -- since evidence means nothing to those of faith, religious debates tend to be more briefly worded, if somewhat more inflammatory.

i do like the discussion of new ideas, along with the older ones, but people tend to get much more defensive when faith comes into it
in short i agree with everything in your statement

 

[SK-1]

Be careful there -- infractions have been handed out in this thread against people not believing someone when they state their profession. It is rude to assume otherwise.

I am not questioning his involvement with the campaign. Where did you get that?
I only asked for something he and I believe, you have asked for. Get an infraction for this?


It is rude to not supply a link and then be "Quasi-threatened" with punishment due to a valid question being asked. I cant WAIT to re-visit my GN "Is freedom of speech under attack already" thread again when this election is over.

 

[thoughtdisorder]

Well, regardless of who you're for, it was just reported that Obama's Grandmother died. She was instrumental in his upbringing. Condolensces.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_grandmother

 

[newconroer]

Do you approve of Palin's "real America" statements? They seem equally, if not more, condescending to me.

If you're not a white, middle class, republican, that lives in a small town (what constitutes a small town anyway) you're not a "real American"? Give me a break Mrs. McCarthy. Liberals and "city-folk" are Americans too.

Only because the Constitution allows it, even though they have little respect for it.

Irony...




Anyways, has Obama ever come forward with his birth certificate yet? I remember when they tried to smear McCain because he was born the Panama Canal, but he effortlessly provided documentation; yet Obama refused to do the same?


I guess it doesn't really matter if he's an American or not; it doesn't matter if it's a Constituional requirement. What's the Constitution again???

That's a political debate on the internet for you. Now it's your job to sift through the data and find points to counter.

I actually prefer religious debates -- since evidence means nothing to those of faith, religious debates tend to be more briefly worded, if somewhat more inflammatory.

You should be careful with that one. Creationists are very interested in science; which encompasses mathematics, astronomy, zoology, etc. If you want to get your head spun around with some talk about general relativity
and the ever increasing proof of a causal agent acting outside of space/time, resulting in the creation of the universe, you should give Hugh Ross' seminars a listen.

 

[trt740]

Oops spoke too soon big Mac is catching up nearing 200 delegates in several polls and Obama is dropping below 300 delegates and Mac's now leading in Battle ground states NC,IN,MO,WV and hes reportedly tied in Ohio, Florida and with Obamas anti coal comments hes gonna lose PA or will be endanger of losing it. This is gonna be very close.

 

[magibeg]

Only because the Constitution allows it, even though they have little respect for it.

Irony...




Anyways, has Obama ever come forward with his birth certificate yet? I remember when they tried to smear McCain because he was born the Panama Canal, but he effortlessly provided documentation; yet Obama refused to do the same?


I guess it doesn't really matter if he's an American or not; it doesn't matter if it's a Constituional requirement. What's the Constitution again???

Yes his birth cert was confirmed weeks ago.

 

[Polaris573]

What's the Constitution again???

Apparently it's a quaint, mythical, document, full of antiquated ideals irrelevant to a modern society.

Most Presidents Ignore the Constitution.

 

[newconroer]

Are you serious Magi?

Hehe Polaris, damn those lofty documents. What in the hell were they thinking?

 

[Palit_Guy]

I wonder how long I can get away with the new avatar?

This is why i don't like having Palit Representative as a title.

 

[Tatty_Two]

watch by Thursday the stock market will collapse.Weather it should or not most investors say if B.O. is elected, because of his stated tax plans, the market will lose faith and crash. We are gonna find out because he will win. All I can say is becareful what you wish for. Bend over investors here it comes.

Lol Tom, trust you to quote the whole "war and peace" screenie i thought your stock market had been on the verge of collapse for some weeks now, surely a little bit of Obama might spice it up a bit

 

[newconroer]

I wonder how long I can get away with the new avatar?

This is why i don't like having Palit Representative as a title.

So, make a new forum account and post under that...

 

[trt740]

Lol Tom, trust you to quote the whole "war and peace" screenie i thought your stock market had been on the verge of collapse for some weeks now, surely a little bit of Obama might spice it up a bit

Not with a increase in the Capitol gains tax and an increase in taxes on businesses and on the owners of all the major companies in the USA by 15 percent and a increase from 0 to 45 percent on business in the form of the death tax. Get ready for a depression. What we need is a spending freeze and we need to cut pork programs and ear marks . Then we need to get out of Iraq (weather it is moral or not). We then need to cut taxes on the top companies and small businesses in America to incentivize growth and employee hiring. Then we need to shrink the federal government and get leaner and smaller. We don't need a tax increase for god sakes!!!! whos gonna hire anyone when you do that. If anything they will lay people off!!!!!! We also need back the 2.2 billion Dollars reported today that Barrack Obama spent on his election over the last 4 years thats right 2.2 billion dollars. Spread that wealth. Tell me that not straight bullshit.