world

McCain criticizes Obama's promise of tax cuts

114 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

114 Comments
Login to comment

First off, Samuel Joeseph Wurzelbacher is not a plumber. Wurzelbacher said yesterday that he isn't a licensed plumber but works with a plumber. "It is utterly bizarre that McCain chose this guy as the poster child, because this guy would get a tax cut under Obama, and wouldn't under McCain," says William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, which has analyzed both Obama's and McCain's tax plans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think it's fair attacking a plumber's apprentice who can barely pay his taxes as it is. What happens when I don't pay for the 1 Trillion bailout or Hilliary's Health Plan (HHP)? Not everyone makes the millions that Obama, Clinton, and McCain make or can afford their lawyers.

-ordinary joe if you ask me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think Joe is a plumber and he might even be a good one, but he's not a licensed plumber. Ultimately I don't think it matters whether good ol' Joe is a plumber or not. The issue is really about taxes, not about plumbing.

It's true that Obama will to tax Joe's income over $250,000 at a marginally higher rate than McCain will. However, Joe isn't at that income level yet and will currently receive a tax break from Obama but not from McCain. Nonetheless, it isn't so bizarre that McCain chose Joe. I think people will pay more attention to the image of Joe, to the characterization of Joe and to Joe's problem as expressed to Obama, than they will to Joe himself.

What I find to be utterly bizarre is McCain's assertion that Joe didn't ask Obama to come to his house. People, the press, the TV crews and cameras are visiting Joe's house primarily because McCain chose to make an issue of Joe. Joe asked the question. Obama gave a direct answer. McCain is mischaracterizing the answer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Badsey,

Who said that Joe "can barely pay his taxes as it is"? Living is prioritizing. Perhaps Joe should cut back in other areas--a less expensive home, a less expensive vehicle, no plasma TV, etc. But, if you're really worried about Joe, Obama will give him a tax cut and McCain will not.

Obama will require himself, Clinton and McCain to pay higher taxes. He will not require you to pay higher taxes. If you are making above $250,000 per year and can barely pay your taxes, your problem is not taxes.

In talking about "spreading the wealth", no administrations have spread the wealth more in recent years than the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. They just spread it in a different way. They took the wealth of generations which had not yet created it and gave it to a generation which spent what it did not have. That's welfare, too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Joe may like the make-believe maverick at the moment, but when he loses his job soon because he has no license, I think he'll be lessed than pleased for all the limelight McCain has given him. As with Palin, being linked to McCain has been the professional kiss of death.

Anyway, nice to see the Repubs. are as desperate as ever -- McCain trying to sully Obama's clean image and Palin bringing up the (failed before) links to ACORN. Hahaha... all the while Obama is moving hugely forward in the polls and talking about how he's going to fix the country.

As Obama said, "100% of your adds have been negative, John. 100%

McCain: "That's not true".

Obama: "Yes it is, John".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hahaha! Joe the Plumber is seriously paying for his 5 minutes of fame; he's now being investigated for possibly owing quite a sum in back taxes, and now that EVERYONE knows he has no license, he either has to get one quick or may lose his job (and the owner of his company lose his if investigation of HIS license proves he doesn't have one either).

Ah, thanks for the laughs, McCain. If mentioning Joe the Plumber only 21 times in your debate instead of real issues wasn't funny enough, this is!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

short story: Joe owes the I.R.S. Joe never said he was a plumber -He said he was looking into buying the plumbing company he works for. Joe never made $250,000 -but thought the revenue of the company he was buying might be close to $250k. Joe asked Obama a question and was told to "spread the bread"

Holy Toledo! Joe. How can such an average person have such crazy stories made up of him. Only Democrats would attack such an average person.

Whom do I send a check for the 1T bailout?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

with all the negativity toward plumbers I would expect others to question the profession. But what constitutes the art of plumbing and who is to judge what is plumb or knot? These are the same people who cost me 1T+ and many more their retirements. Who is judging who here? -and whom am I to call when my pipes are clogged = I don't trust these politicians or financialists right now so the situation can only get worse and more septic as time goes on. =This is quickly becoming a crisis and maybe only "average Joe" can fix it.

Dangerously Septic if you ask me and I am not happy. Change Is needed here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama's tax cuts explained with a graph:

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/august-08-08/the-folly-of-obama2019s-tax-plan

"Senator Obama’s proposed ‘tax cuts for the middle class’ are actually marginal rate hikes in disguise."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Badsey - "Only Democrats would attack such an average person."

Democrats and liberals.

"Whom do I send the check for the 1T bailout?

Don't bail out poor Joe the Plumber - use that 1T to help a poor bank so its manager can still go play golf!

Even if Obama wins, one bright spot for Joe - I'll betcha he gets a lot of people offering to pay off his IRS debt!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Obama's promise"

If Obama gets elected, the people who voted for him are going to be mighty disappointed when he can't come through on most, if any, of his promises.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tax problem for the day:

If Joe-the-Plumber owes the State of Ohio $1200 (not the I.R.S) in back taxes, How much does Joe-Six-Pack owe? (Obama or McCain fuzzy tax logic allowed!!)

-unlike politicians you must show your work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sewho2 said

will currently receive a tax break from Obama but not from McCain

Not actually true Sezwho2 McCains tax plan has cuts all the way down too.. The amount is differnet but he would get a tax break from both of them...

Smithinjapan said again:

Joe may like the make-believe maverick at the moment, but when he loses his job soon because he has no license, I think he'll be lessed than pleased for all the limelight McCain has given him

We allready proved he doesnt needa license to work as a plumber under a licenced one according to Ohio law right? But it does make a nice sound bite..

From fact check Obama incorrectly claimed all of McCain’s ads had been “negative.” That was true for one recent week, but not over the entire campaign. And at times Obama has run a higher percentage of attack ads than McCain.

Obama strained to portray himself as willing to break ranks with fellow Democrats. His prime example was his vote for a bill that was supported by 18 Democrats and opposed by 26. Congressional Quarterly rates him as voting with his party 97 percent of the time since becoming a U.S. senator

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_3.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who's next on the McCain, Palin fictional character list to enhance a sinking campaign? Bob the Builder? Mary the Nurse? Harry the Waste Disposal Mechanic?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Who's next on the McCain, Palin fictional character list to enhance a sinking campaign? Bob the Builder? Mary the Nurse? Harry the Waste Disposal Mechanic?"

Ask Obama.

Joe was playing football with his kids.

Obama sought him out.

And now Obama's handlers are whining and saying that McCain [!] should have vetted the guy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hear this guy Joe is already in trouble with the IRS over unpaid taxes! McCain has become a laughing stock. I feel embarrased for the Republican Party

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Badsey: "But what constitutes the art of plumbing and who is to judge what is plumb or knot?"

So, are you saying that just because Joe is working against the law by not having a license, that we should not question him? Are you therefore skirting the laws by waxing philosophic and asking, "What is plumbing, anyway? Who can judge?" If you, your logic and theorizing presents some might BIG problems for people seeking employment in ANY field they deem themselves worthy to work in. Hell, I'm not at all qualified to be your next president, based on both my country of birth, and the fact that I have none of the requisite papers, diplomas, etc., to do so. But, and especially if you think of your current president, I could certainly do the job. So does that mean I can go out and run, and not pay my back taxes to boot?

The question was rhetorical: no! 'Who is to judge? (what plumbing is or isn't)' -- the laws of the state, like with any other job.

I'm sure an eight year old could work well in the salt mines, but it would still be illegal under law. Joe may be able to do all the things a plumber can do, and perhaps he can even do them better than most, but the point is he is doing them illegally by not having a license. The law decides that.

One of the points I'm making here is, because of McCain choosing this man and highlighting his 'plight' (that if he... sniff sniff... makes over 250k/year he'll have to pay more! Oh, woe-is-me!) in his attacks on Obamas economic plans, he has not only shot himself in the foot, but he has literally destroyed this man's career.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, are you saying that just because Joe is working against the law by not having a license

Hes a tradsman under a licensed Plumber business and can not even get a license until he completes five years as a tradesman.. So he is not illegal at all...

Again nice sound bite.. But the fact is simple Joe isnt breaking any laws working how he works. The company that he works for is licensed to work in Ohio, and Toledo city, they just dont have a license for the county they live in.. As a tradsman he is allowed to work in that company with out a license...

Wow you would think before you post again again a lie you would check it out.. Ohh but then it wouldnt be political would it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

repost again to chow Ohio law on who has to be licensed and who is a tradesman....

this is what words mean

(D) “Tradesperson” means an individual employed by a contractor who engages in construction, improvement, renovation, repair, or maintenance of buildings or structures without assuming responsibility for the means, method, or manner of that construction, improvement, renovation, repair, or maintenance.

this refers to getting a license

3) Either have been a tradesperson in the type of licensed trade for which the application is filed for not less than five years immediately prior to the date the application is filed, be a currently registered engineer in this state with three years of business experience in the construction industry in the trade for which the engineer is applying to take an examination, or have other experience acceptable to the appropriate section of the board;

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5,

I guess it is a matter of opinion that Joe would get a tax cut under Obama but not under McCain. The truth of the matter is somewhat more elusive.

My source was William Gale of the Tax Policy Center and is quoted here:

http://tinyurl.com/5bz937

What is your source?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

some people are more plumb than others:

McCain: Doesn't meet the "natural born citizen" requirement legally to be President. The congressional law was unbinding and he was born a year too early anyway.

Joe the Plumber: Works under the supervision of a state licensed pumbing entity who is willing to take all responsibility for his work and make sure it meets code = seems plumb to me.

Obama: cost me a Trillion dollars and likes to pal around with unsavory types/racists/terrorists.

Palin: Wants to build a "pork-road to nowhere"

Biden: About 100 Delawares fit into Alaska and he wants unlimited credit-card interest rates.

Could someone tell me why Joe Plumber should not be running for President? -only honest one of the Bunch.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

coulrophobic,

Obama did not "seek out" Joe the plumber. Obama was doing something that politicians--except possibly "front porch Harmon"--have always done. He was working the neighborhood.

Joe chose to ask the question. He didn't have too. He could have said, "Sorry, sir, I'm busy now. I promised my kids to chuck the ball around."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Joe chose to ask the question. He didn't have too. He could have said, "Sorry, sir, I'm busy now. I promised my kids to chuck the ball around."

Yeah. Pretty good argument there.

Why worry about your kids and their future.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

man, so many of you groupies miss some big numbers!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's all okay, the largest plumbers union endorsed Obama back in January...

http://www.ua.org/ua_endorses.asp

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't know how many of you make 250k salary but I am sure many of us here invest enough to be concerned that both candidates are going to raise capital gains taxes and that is a big problem. I can not believe how selfish so many are, that only if you hit 250k you pay more in taxes but if you make 239k you don't pay any more.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Badsey: "Biden: About 100 Delawares fit into Alaska and he wants unlimited credit-card interest rates."

So Delaware is smaller than Alaska, so what? Why not ask how many Alaskans fit into Delaware? What would it be... some 1 thousand Alaskas (population-wise) into 1 Delaware? I mean, after all, almost every adult I know has a credit card, but I've never known a land-mass that owns one.

coulrophobic: "Joe was playing football with his kids. Obama sought him out. And now Obama's handlers are whining and saying that McCain [!] should have vetted the guy."

Sorry, amigo, but as was said above, Joe sought OBAMA out, not the other way around. What's more, I give plenty of kudos to Obama for doing what he should; talking for the man. What can you say of Palin? She has never answered a SINGLE question outside of a public address or interview, and even both of those types of venues have been strictly screened and controlled.

Nice try though, trying to spin and make it look like it was actually Obama who approached the 'in my mind I am a' plumber.

Hey, here's a question, Coulrophobia: can you point us to a single comment of yours that has actually spoken about what McCain/Palin will do for the nation if elected? I haven't seen you make a SINGLE one... that's right, not ONE comment that is on topic or in support of your candidates; all we ever hear from you is how bad Obama is, or ACORN (omitted only, perhaps, from your last two posts). So... is there anything good you can tell us about McCain/Palin or, like them, is part of your lack of credibility and rating as someone believe due to the fact that you can only try and attack others?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5: "(D) “Tradesperson” means an individual employed by a contractor who engages in construction, improvement, renovation, repair, or maintenance of buildings or structures without assuming responsibility for the means, method, or manner of that construction, improvement, renovation, repair, or maintenance.

this refers to getting a license

3) Either have been a tradesperson in the type of licensed trade for which the application is filed for not less than five years immediately prior to the date the application is filed, be a currently registered engineer in this state with three years of business experience in the construction industry in the trade for which the engineer is applying to take an examination, or have other experience acceptable to the appropriate section of the board;"

So, in other words, you admit he's not a 'plumber', but a 'tradesperson'. Shouldn't he be Joe the Tradesperson then?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I love how Obama can lie so easily and tell the public that he is willing to give 95% of the population a tax cut. It's not even a tax cut in the first place. The plan offers a $500-$900 tax rebate. Of course, this is after he eliminates all of the tax cuts Bush gave and hikes the death tax (yes, that's right, you are taxed 3 times when you die), the dividend tax, and income tax. You may get $500 in the mail, but you will be spending an additional $1500 if your make below $60,000 a year and an addition 15% for every $15,000 above that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I love how Obama can lie so easily and tell the public that he is willing to give 95% of the population a tax cut...."

I love how fools on here often buy 100% into the fear-mongering tactics of the overly-desperate Republican candidates (often quoting directly from their adds, which are full of blatent lies or that severely stretch the truth), and are genuinely scared of things in their lives getting better.

I suppose, MPNiea, that you therefore admire McCain more for simply giving the rich elite tax breaks and not denying he's going to tax the 'little people', Joe Six-Pack, Joe the Plumber, and the rest of the guys, far more than Obama is going to. I mean, he's not LYING to you about it, so you like the guy for it?

Where do you get your figures on how Obama is going to increase the things you mentioned, and about the rebate? Can you provide us with links to your figures? oh, and please, not someone's blogs or some ultra-rightist's personal homepage, please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

coulrophobic,

Which is it? Joe didn't want to talk to Obama because Joe was busy playing foot ball with his kids or Joe couldn't refuse to talk to Obama because of the future of Joe's kids? Either way, Obama did not seek Joe out any more than an apple picker seeks out any particular ripe apple.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah don't believe Obama he just has Paul Volcker, who incidentally was appointed by Jimmy Carter as Chairman of the Federal Reserve and began the task of lowing inflation before Regan was president by limiting the growth of the money supply; it was under Volcker not Greenspan that Inflation, which peaked at 13.5% in 1981, was successfully lowered to 3.2% by 1983, Lawrence Summers, former Sec. of Treasury. Warren Buffet, well his greatest claim to fame is being Warren Buffet, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary. Paul O’Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury, working for him. These people are not just willy nilly staking their reputations on the fact that he will keep his promise on tax cuts.

Who does McCain have . . . Phil (Americans are whiners) Graham.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By the way Paul O’Neill worked for president Bush.

A report commissioned in 2002 by O'Neill, while he was Treasury Secretary, suggested the United States faced future federal budget deficits of more than US$ 500 billion. The report also suggested that sharp tax increases, massive spending cuts, or both would be unavoidable if the United States were to meet benefit promises to its future generations. The study estimated that closing the budget gap would require the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase. The Bush administration left the findings out of the 2004 annual budget report published in February 2003.

O'Neill's private feuds with Bush's tax cut policies and his push to further investigate alleged al-Qaeda funding from some USA-allied countries, as well as his objection to the invasion of Iraq in the name of the war on terror - that he considered as nothing but a simple excuse for a war decided long before by Neoconservative elements of the first Bush Administration - led to his resignation in 2002.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Either way, Obama did not seek Joe out any more than an apple picker seeks out any particular ripe apple."

I do believe even SezWho has been duped by the openly partisan mainstream media's perverse determination to bring voters more info about Joe the Plumber than they have given us about Barack the Democrat Candidate for President.

In the end Joe, his real name, Joe's kids, his marital status, his party affiliation, his journeyman status, his employment history, his boss, the tax lien he faces, Ohio labor laws, the time he spent in Alaska - none of these are the issue.

Obama's reply to the Joe Who Represents Small Business Owners All Over America is the real issue.

"Do you believe in the American dream?''

"I'm being taxed more and more for fulfilling the American dream.''

0 ( +0 / -0 )

coulrophobic: "If a fool is someone who injures himself needlessly I'd have to say that anyone banging on his keyboard all day and for years now about an election in which he has zero say makes him the fool."

I haven't been talking about this election 'for years now' at all, my friend. Only the past few weeks. Nor have I been talking about it all day or every day -- though definitely a lot on SOME days. What's more, I have never once complained of my fingers hurting. Aside from the 'an election in which you have zero say' (should be 'elections', but I've never really harped on about all your typos, etc.) part, it seems you are once again misdirecting your own pain and frustration on others. I have absolutely no trouble commenting on your country's politics.

Now, how about answering the question both Sez and I posed to you, and the other I asked you in regards to why you have never once actually commented on the good McCain/Palin could potentially do in office if elected, and instead concentrate 100% on attacking Obama/Biden and the comments of other posters?

Stop running away from the comments, my friend. Try answering a few questions... if typing on the keyboard doesn't tax your fingers too much and needlessely injure you, that is. Haha. Until then, my "I love how fools on here often buy 100% into the fear-mongering tactics of the overly-desperate Republican candidates" you kindly quoted stands true.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Barack Obama has Paul Volcker!

81 year-old Paul Volcker?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

An economy built on borrowed money is built on borrowed time. So the same applies to those who supported this structure's creation, i.e. McCain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

coulrophobic said:

Obama's reply to the Joe Who Represents Small Business Owners All Over America is the real issue.

Of course the NeoCons want Obama's statement to be the issue. The have absolutely no defense against a superb tax cut plan. It's a gimmick the Repulicans need to win. They are using a sound bite with the words "spread the wealth." They may get traction for a day or two. But the American people have been very smart this election. They have investigated the actual tax plans.

The entire Republican strategy now is sound bites and gimmicks. NeoCons who want to defend against that statement need to explain why all these various Democrats on here have explained the Obama tax cuts and how to get it calculated. However none of the conservatives have told us anything about the McCain tax cut plan. Squat. Nil. Nada. Blank. Bagatelle. Naught. Nichts. Nonentity. A vacuum. Nought. Null. Zilch.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey: "However none of the conservatives have told us anything about the McCain tax cut plan. Squat. Nil. Nada. Blank. Bagatelle. Naught. Nichts. Nonentity. A vacuum. Nought. Null. Zilch."

I'd like to expand on that to point out that not only can they NOT tell us anything about the McCain tax plan (I would say 'cut' but he doesn't sound like he would cut anything at all, except any proposed legislature to tax the rich), but they can't tell us about McCain/Palin at all! Check almost ANY comment by ANY of them -- they are as focused on Obama as the rest of the country and world. The only difference is that they make up a few of the very very very small percentage who hasn't either liked Obama from the get-go, or gotten off the Republican sinking ship.

Obama's tax plan sounds fine and fair, as does his suggestions for health. How about McCains? (silence... only the implosion of republican brains as they think of ways to bash Obama and supporters).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Paul Volcker blows Pheeeehill Graaaaahum away in any intellectual pursuit. You just happen to choose the guy who solved the impossible task of bringing down inflation in the early eighties. From 13.5% to 3.2% in two years. coulrophobic you are so quick to criticize a great economist; please enlighten us with a member of prestige from the McCain team.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinJapan you make statement that he is illegal and breaking the law working how he does, guess what all your typing and all your sound bite spinning doesnt change it that your wrong... He also never called himself Joe the Plumber, but being licensed doesnt make you the plumer your ability does... As you used in your response about teacher... In public shcool they have to be licensed, but they dont have to be in a Private school, and they still are teachers.. Just as Joe is a plumber hes just not a licensed plumber in Ohio....

A tradesman is still the same job... So an apprentice would be more likely for a name.. my point which like usual you decided to change was simple.. He isnt illegal and he isnt doing anything wrong working how he is working..

Any more sound bites for today?? ]

Sezwho2

Obamas web site and his neat how much can I save you tool.... single head of household, 1 child, child care expense and retirement savings...

Obama claims with his own tool mccain will save him $472

Doh that sucks ey tell me Obama is wrong:)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Finally had a chance to study both plans. I went to the Tax Policy Institute who in conjunction with the Brookings Institute conducted the most comprehensive comparision of the two plans. Brookings tends to be the favorite think tank of the left of center spectrum by the way, but I have always found them to be one of the most fair and reliable sources of information when trying to form my own opinions.

The differences in the two plans are pretty stark and the underlying political philosphy in both Obama and McCain are truly reflected in their proposals.

Obama's plan is really redistribution of wealth toward the lower tier in the form of targeted tax breaks. McCain's is much more business and job growth creation theough traditional Republican philosphy of allowing capital to continue be re-invested into the economy.

After looking at both plans I think Obama's is the worse for long term health and growth of the economy and future of the country. His tax breaks in my opinion are going to cause future generations with even more disincentives to work at their full income potential and let others foot the bill instead.

A couple of things that I really got my attention from the report. I'll post the link after my excerpts. There are some very sharp people here (Sezwho, goodDonkey etc) Who I know will give the entire report a good perusing over, and give their opinions on it.

The first one:

Those changes would all affect economic choices about work, saving, and investment, potentially worsening economic outcomes. Although evidence is mixed on how much high-income taxpayers react to increases in their tax rates, most research has found only relatively small permanent reductions in income, but that taxpayers with the highest incomes respond more to tax changes than those with lower income and they have more ability to shift income to avoid temporarily high tax rates.

I also know this to be a fact. Obama is not going to get his revenue from the rich they are going to call on their already massive army of tax lawyers and accountants and move income into tax shelters and trust funds you name it to avoid the extra taxes. And all that hidden revenue is monbey that is not going to be invested in companies or any other future job growth.

I really hated this part, I seen it in my personal life and it's the main reason I really don't like his plan at all in a nutshell.

And because the phaseout of the credit increases marginal tax rates for those workers in the phaseout range, it might actually give those workers an incentive to work less.

I bolded to work less part.

His plan also have a major problem with Senior Citizens that may feel compelled to keep on working after 65 but will choose not to.

The proposal to exempt seniors earning under $50,000 from income tax is poorly designed according to its current description and creates inequity between older and younger taxpayers with the same income. As we understand it, the proposal contains a “cliff:” filers with income just below $50,000 would owe no income tax, but those with income just above that level could owe substantial tax. This would create substantial disincentives for seniors near the income threshold to work or otherwise earn income.

My overall view, Obama's plan is a long term prescription of ensuring a permanent slacker class a bit blunt but that is my take on it.

The report.....Non biased to boot.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nippon5: "He also never called himself Joe the Plumber..."

Where did I say he called himself that? I said he is called that... as in the passive voice (by others).

"...but being licensed doesnt make you the plumer your ability does..."

Hogwash! Call it semantics, but while he may or may not have the ability of a plumber, he cannot be technically called one without the proper certification. The idea of someone being a 'teacher' is far more vague than that of a plumber, and my example of someone teaching in a public school still stands -- they cannot say, "I am a school teacher" unless they are licensed and working in a school. Those who work in your aforementioned private established are not technically teachers, though they function as them, in the same way that while parents teach their children manners, or a mentor teaches a 'pupil' the ways of things, they are not by law teachers in a school.

Again, semantics, but he's not a plumber in said state.

Speaking of sounds bites, your recent and constant 'sound bite bla bla bla' mentioned in almost EVERY single post of yours in the past few days has become so repetitive it's the biggest soundbite on here. Stop being hypocritical!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Call it semantics, but while he may or may not have the ability of a plumber, he cannot be technically called one without the proper certification."

To further qualify this, which I meant to do above, I should point that one would be lying if they put 'plumber' in their resume (or CV, for the English out there) without the proper qualifications. He would have to put, "Experience in the field of plumbing", or, "Worked at a plumbing business (which may not have a license itself)". Same with the 'teacher'. They couldn't apply for a teaching job and rightfully put 'teacher' on their resume, now could they?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain and Palin are plumbing the depths. Thier latest scummy tactic is to send automated phone calls attempting to link Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama with one-time radical William Ayers. The robo-calls, sent Thursday in several states, said Obama "worked closely with domestic terrorist" Ayers. Obama, a child when Ayers was active in the Weather Underground in the late 1960s and early 1970s, has denounced Ayers' radical views and activities.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Stop being hypocritical-----lmao the pot call the kettle black?

well if you would quit trying to change what your trying to prove so often I wouldnt have to repeat the facts so much now would I..

Get over your political self and stop once and awhile and try not to belittle every person who isnt on yourside (which hell you cant even be on a side since you are not even an American last time I checked the Republican party and the Democrate party are only American political parties, so that makes you just a wanna be democrate and a wanna be American.....)

Once again your ability to not understand that in other states or other locations he doesnt need the license so his title as a plumber has nothing to do with his license.. His title as license Ohio plumber would be if he was licensed in Ohio...

Your logic is what ever swings to your way... A teacher is a teacher no matter where they teach.. just like all you who teach english in Japan your not a real licensed teacher your just a teacher..

Im glad you feel a plumber should be held to the standards of a lawyer or a doctor, and not the same level as a network engineer,teacher,bricklayer,concrete worker, farmer, or any other trade skill, but your wrong about it, a plumber is a trade skill and if he does it for aliving (which means he must be good at it to live off it) he is a plumber no matter how many times you spin it..

what another sound bite from the new American canadian democrate left party??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5: "Get over your political self and stop once and awhile and try not to belittle every person who isnt on yourside"

I don't belittle everyone that isn't on my side, my friend. Only those who make truly foolish comments and/or those who are or would support someone as utterly destructive as John McCain (and Bush, for that matter). As to my nationality, it doesn't matter one bit if I can vote or not in terms of me having an opinion on any politician around the world. It can't affect the election outcome, to be sure, but saying I can't state my opinion on the matter or support one person or the other is like saying you can't support a Japanese artist because you are not of their nationality. It also means you are admitting that your opinion on world matters is strictly limited to those that are American -- you are not allowed to have an opinion on anything else.

"Your logic is what ever swings to your way... A teacher is a teacher no matter where they teach.. just like all you who teach english in Japan your not a real licensed teacher your just a teacher.."

No, I was talking about how you are avoiding the technical aspects of things here and straying into semantics that are convenient for you. If I say, "No, you don't belch like that, you belch by sucking in air like this!" that makes me a 'teacher' of sorts, because I taught someone who to belch correctly, but in no way does it qualify me to start working at Harvard. Can I likewise say I am a professor if I break into a lecture hall and start preaching to some students whom I dupe into paying me? Technically speaking, a professional teacher is one with a license, and even with your example of people who come over here to teach English, I challenge you to go around looking at those who do so who are licensed, and those people that just come over here for work a bit of experience. YOu will see a huge difference in at least 90% of the cases (with the trained and qualified teachers doing a far better and correct job). The remaining 10% is either because the qualified teachers suck at their jobs, or the unqualified (by that I mean uncertified) "teachers" are just inherintly good at it. And I'm still willing to bet you a LOT of money that they cannot write 'teacher' on their resume and be truthful... they would simply write 'teaching experience'.

So much for another of your sound bites. Oh, and I have to say, I usually don't comment too much on grammar/spelling etc. (have twice today, which is unusual), but your last comment is pretty incoherent in parts. Tighten it up a bit. The odd spelling mistake is perfectly fine and dandy, since none of us can avoid the odd typo, but man...

He is not a plumber, period. A tradesperson, okay... but not a plumber. And he is getting pummelled over it, thanks to McCain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He just asked a question. And Americans ought to be able to ask Sen. Obama tough questions without being smeared and targeted with political attacks.”

Speaking of political attacks this one is about as bad as it gets. I'm pretty sure we will much more horrible things from this young lady in the future also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aww8vhws1y4

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ohh..Wanted to add hope she doesn't get "Joe the Plumber" in her sights, it would be viscious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"He is not a plumber, period."

If Obama wins and the unions have their way he never will be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm sure if there is a leak in the White House, Joe will be called in to fix it. Wait a moment, weren't the Nixon/Republican gang who broke into the Watergate complex, which ended in Richard Nixon resigning in disgrace, called the Plumbers? So, I think the Republican Party have quite an affinity, affection for plumbers. Some things never change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind

I liked the video of Emily. She is feisty if not impetuous. How can any of McCain's people debate her? She can just play the 8 year old kid card. That has to be the most effective card in the deck. What you're pickin' on a kid?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is in trouble, he does not have a big enough lead in swing states to win. I figure the republicans are kicking at least 5% of Obama voters off the rolls so he needs at least a 6% advantage to win.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So typical. Joe the Plumber gets the Obamessiah to make a slip and admit that government-run wealth redistribution is his goal and instead of questioning Obama about that astonishing policy statement, the press goes.... and harrasses Joe the Plumber. Incredible bias.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: "I'm pretty sure we will much more horrible things from this young lady in the future also."

The truth is sometimes a horrible thing, eh bud? But that makes McCain horrible, not the girl for pointing it out. Pretty precocious for an eight year old little thing, but that makes it all the more poignant and true. Good on her.

Nippon5: "being an ass because someone doesnt believe in the same political crap you do is just a show of childness... Saying the man is not a plumber is just trying to make a political point."

But coming on here and getting your hair in a tussle and calling someone an 'ass' because you can't take it... nope, that's not childish at all. Look, Nippon, you're clearly a newbie here, so let me give you a word of advice before you get the boot... don't break down and spaz out -- it becomes YOU who looks childish.

"Do we want to continue the name calling or do you want to actually create a discussion based on facts?"

Oh... no... please don't! hahaha... I couldn't care less what you call me or anyone else on this board, my friend. Do as you will. I've been talking about facts the whole time, you have simply chosen not to listen. The fact is he is not a plumber because he doesn't have a license. I can fix my toilet as well, and I've fix a neighbours sink and gotten money for it, but that doesn't make me a licensed plumber. Quote dictionaries all you want; I can tell you that a doctor is someone who passed through medical school, and I'm not one if I put a band aid on your little fists.

"I guess then allot of those who work blue collar jobs are not what they think they are...."

They may be able to do to the job, but they cannot declare themselves officially of that profession on legal documents if they don't have the same to back themselves up.

sarge: "Except, smith, that if your toilet breaks, he can fix it. Can you?"

I can, actually. I had to fix toilets on various occasions when I was working in a restaurant, and I'm not just talking about standing on the seat and pumping on a plunger. I can uncouple all the parts of a toilet and sink, use a snake, etc. The only thing I didn't do when needed once was dig up the sidewalk when the plug was too far down the pipes. I installed my own washer here in Japan rather than pay the guy the 10,000 yen 'set-ting' fee, etc. So... am I plumber, too? Can I write that on my Custom's declaration next time I come into Japan from a trip home? If, god forbid, I were desperate enough to want to go live in the US, could I put 'plumber' under the profession category?

According to you guys, I can.

As for Obama and back to the thread, how would that affect my new plumbing/teaching/doctor job over there? ZIP, unless I were one of the 5% of Americans listed in the very rich category.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Apology accepted. It's easier to make mistakes in this medium than the spoken word, so good of you to bring the simmering down.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama : "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"

Yeah, everybody except for the people you're taking the money from, you little squirrel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"sailwind: "I'm pretty sure we will much more horrible things from this young lady in the future also."

The truth is sometimes a horrible thing, eh bud? But that makes McCain horrible, not the girl for pointing it out. Pretty precocious for an eight year old little thing, but that makes it all the more poignant and true. Good on her.

Nippon5: "being an ass because someone doesnt believe in the same political crap you do is just a show of childness... Saying the man is not a plumber is just trying to make a political point."

But coming on here and getting your hair in a tussle and calling someone an 'ass' because you can't take it... nope, that's not childish at all. What's more, as I said to you before I do not by any means argue with people simply because they don't share my political views. Debate/discuss with them? sure, if they are able to carry on a decent conversation without resorting to the name calling you do as a sole justification for their beliefs. I called McCain and Joe the Plumber up on the fact that he is not licensed, and therefore cannot officially declare himself a plumber. That's a fact.

"Do we want to continue the name calling or do you want to actually create a discussion based on facts?"

Oh... no... please don't! I couldn't care less what you call me or anyone else on this board, my friend. Do as you will. I've been talking about facts the whole time, you have simply chosen not to listen. The fact is he is not a plumber because he doesn't have a license. I can fix my toilet as well, and I've fix a neighbours sink and gotten money for it, but that doesn't make me a licensed plumber. Quote dictionaries all you want; I can tell you that a doctor is someone who passed through medical school, and I'm not one if I put a band aid on your little fists.

"I guess then allot of those who work blue collar jobs are not what they think they are...."

They may be able to do to the job, but they cannot declare themselves officially of that profession on legal documents if they don't have the same to back themselves up.

sarge: "Except, smith, that if your toilet breaks, he can fix it. Can you?"

I can, actually. I had to fix toilets on various occasions when I was working in a restaurant, and I'm not just talking about standing on the seat and pumping on a plunger. I can uncouple all the parts of a toilet and sink, use a snake, etc. The only thing I didn't do when needed once was dig up the sidewalk when the plug was too far down the pipes. I installed my own washer here in Japan rather than pay the guy the 10,000 yen 'set-ting' fee, etc. So... am I plumber, too? Can I write that on my Custom's declaration next time I come into Japan from a trip home? If, god forbid, I were desperate enough to want to go live in the US, could I put 'plumber' under the profession category?

According to you guys, I can.

As for Obama and back to the thread, how would that affect my new plumbing/teaching/doctor job over there? ZIP, unless I were one of the 5% of Americans listed in the very rich category."

Mods: All of my comments were directed at questions specifically pointed at me, save Sailwind's. When you delete the other comments for being what you called 'off topic' (we all know that's just your blanket way of saying you don't like the comment), you can delete mine and actually pretend to believe the same. Thanks. Hey, I even tweaked it a little so as not to be as mocking of Nippon5, which I guess is why you deleted the comment in the first place. Hell, Mods, I even injected McCain -- the main subject of this thread (or at least the person who inspired it) -- into my comment, where there is not a SINGLE mention of him or any other parts of the thread in the comments/questions I touched on in mine. So how is it MY comment is off topic while the others' are not?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey: "I liked the video of Emily"

You would.

sailwind - I feel sorry for little Emily, who has obviously been brainwashed by her mother, who has obviously been eating too many of those cookies!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "I feel sorry for little Emily, who has obviously been brainwashed by her mother..."

I feel sorry for her too, if she were pushed into doing what she did by her parents. I believe she took after Obama via role-modelling, but then acted on her own, minus the content of the add itself, of course. As such, I doubt she was 'brainwashed' into wanting Obama to win than you and I were when we wanted to be what our parents were when we were kids. Kids may be naive, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily pushed into liking what their parents do. Anyway, the girl herself raised the money and seems pretty proud of it.

Would you feel the same way if the girl had paid for an add on McCain's behalf?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey: "I liked the video of Emily" You would. sailwind - I feel sorry for little Emily, who has obviously been brainwashed by her mother, who has obviously been eating too many of those cookies!

You are aware, aren't you, that the whole report is a joke?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simon_Foston

There is no laugh like laughing at yourself. I did not know it was a joke. I saw The Onion before but I did not click on it because I thought it was a liberal news source and although I am a liberal I try to use valid news sources most of the time that I won't get a hard time for posting on JT. I had to look The Onion up on Wikipedia to find out that I am gullible and susceptible to well produced spoofs. Thanks for telling me and I hope you can laugh at me for being a goof. I got a good laugh when I realized I fell for something that probably everyone under 30 has known about for ages.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well put-together, wasn't it? GoodDonkey, I really would be laughing at you if you were a Republican supporter and you thought it was something you could have a go at Obama with. That would just be hilarious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Check-Mate

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama seems to win,"White House" should be changed to "House 1" for future presidents .Who know?, next maybe Japanese American, Indian American, Cuban American...if that ever happen ,I said it first here on JT.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

coulrophobic,

You say that you think I have been duped. Yet you cannot bring yourself to be specific. How much attention do you think I should pay to your surmise?

Joe is not being taxed for fulfilling the American dream. No one is being taxed for fulfilling the American dream. Joe and everyone else are being taxed for earning income.

I just can't get exercised if you have to pay 3 cents more on your 250,001st dollar of income. You still get to keep 61 cents. If that is going to destroy your incentive to earn and continue to fulfill whatever your conception of the American dream is, too bad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5,

Thank you for the response. Your result was derived from your assumptions concerning how to use an approximation tool provided by the Tax Policy Center. My result was based on a statement provided by the co-director of that same center.

Any tool of the sort that appears on Obama's web site will be only as good as the information that was inputted. Yes, assuming a $40,000 income and ignoring information about mortgages, Obama's web site shows a $472 tax decrease under the McCain plan. It also shows a $1,036 tax decrease under the Obama plan.

I think it's at least possible that a more careful analysis would produce different results. Don't you? And for all that John McCain has talked about Joe the Plumber, I haven't heard him say directly that he will decrease Joe's taxes, too. Have you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simon - You really think Team Obama's policies would be more effective than Team McCain's policies to deal with the financial debacle which is the result of Democrat policies?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind,

It's going to take me a while to wade through the reports. Incidentally, there is an updated report at:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411749_updated_candidates.pdf

This reflects Obama's August revisions and Congress's updated budget numbers.

Just a quick reaction to your comments, however:

I'm not much of a believer that "redistributing wealth" to the lower income levels provides a significant disincentive. People who truly do not want to work to improve their lives are a hard-core minority, in my opinion. People at any level who earn a significant portion of their income will continue to work hard to preserve the income they earn.

This is particularly true, in my experience, at the upper levels of income. People who have money really want money and they don't stop wanting money. The supposed disincentive that higher taxes might bring are negligible if the percentage increases are small. And, in any event, it is easier for someone making $25K to make $26K, than for someone making $5K to make $6K. Additionally the wealthy may have been able to temporarily shield income, but that is under the typical Republican tax structure of which you spoke.

Also, I'm not really sure why you think it is unfair that seniors have a portion of their income exempted. It does create "a cliff". However, it's something that will be available to everyone when they qualify for it. Seniors in general have much more limited income opportunities and much more serious medical expenses--and possibly even continuing child-raising expenses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sezwho2 I just inputted Joes actual data... single father making 40k a year with child expense and a small retirement... I also can get my info at many other places but its hard to object to it if its from Obamas actual site:)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/candidates08/compare/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411749_updated_candidates.pdf

Im no tax person, but with both of them using the george bush tax cuts (other then Obama taking it away for those 250k and above, you have no other verdict then they both are lowing taxes on all people since they are both using the same base... After that tax cut they have other programs that lower or raise taxes from that point.. Everything I have read shows both have tax cuts for people in the 0- 226k and McCain has cuts above that...

Also Obama has a much better rate from 66k and below, bu they are almost equal at 66-160 then McCain is better after that...

Thats just base line tax savings with out the other tax options...

So the statement was McCain doesnt cut Joe the Plumbers tax at his present pay would be incorrect I think..

I dont think he is saying he will decrease his taxes.. And depending on the person the tax rebate is different.. I actually get a better rebate with McCain then Obama,But my Mother does better under Obama then McCain..

Im one who would rather pay the taxes (since after deductions and such Im not going to pay anything at the end of the year) and have the goverment paying as it goes, but allot would rather have the goverment push this off to my grandkids...

Also the 3% tax increase isnt going to matter to anyone who earns 250k or more because they will find a way not to pay it just like they always have.. So in my opinion the tax increase isnt going to produce much revenue..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

All taxation is based on the principal that it's good to spread the wealth around. Our national debt is increasing. Unless you want to spread the poverty to future generations, we have to increase taxes.

The only questions are who should pay the burden of higher taxes and how will we apply the tax dollars raised--exclusively to reduce the debt? to increase military expenditure? to increase social spending? All of those decisions are undertaken for what has been called "the common good".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sez - "we have to increase taxes"

What! And torpedo the economic recovery? Jeez, even Obama is saying he'd cut taxes on the middle class, even though he actually wouldn't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wanted to make a point about our progressive tax system. Many of you will already know this but for those who don't it can be quite enlightening especially when they realize tax hikes on the rich only affect part of their income

Schedule Y-1 — Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er)

If taxable income is over-- $0 But not over-- $15,650

The tax is: 10% of the amount over $0

If taxable income is over-- $15,650 But not over-- $63,700

The tax is: $1,565.00 plus 15% of the amount over 15,650

If taxable income is over-- $63,700 But not over-- $128,500

The tax is: $8,772.50 plus 25% of the amount over 63,700

If taxable income is over-- $128,500 But not over-- $195,850

The tax is: $24,972.50 plus 28% of the amount over 128,500

If taxable income is over-- $195,850 But not over-- $349,700

The tax is: $43,830.50 plus 33% of the amount over 195,850

If taxable income is over-- $349,700 But not over-- no limit

The tax is: $94,601.00 plus 35% of the amount over 349,700

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html

Therefore if you are making $250,000. You would be taxed 10% on the first $15,650., 15% on $15,650. through $63,700. (or 67000 - 15650 = $48,050.), 25% on $63,700. through $128,500. (or 128500 - 63700 = $64,800.), 28% on $128,500. through $195,850. (or 195850 - 128500 = $67,350.) and 33% on $195,850. through $250,000. (or 250000 - 195850 = $54,150.)

10% of $15,650 = $1,565.

15% of $48,050 = $7,207.50

25% of $64,800 = $16,200.

28% of $67,350 = $18,858.

33% of $54,150 = $17,869.50

So next we add them up $1,565. + $7,207.50 + $16,200. + $18,858. + $17,869.50 = $61,700.00 To verify we use the IRS method which is to use the " If taxable income is over-- $195,850 But not over-- $349,700 The tax is: $43,830.50 plus 33% of the amount over 195,850"

So we take $43,830.50 and add it to ((($250,000. - $195,850. = $54,150.) X .33)= $17,869.50) which is $61,700.00. Our long method was the same as the IRS table located on the link I provided.

So my point was that you don't actually pay, in the case of $250,000. the tax rate of 33%. 33% is what is called the Marginal Tax Rate. The Marginal Tax Rate is the tax rate you pay on your last dollar. The Average Tax Rate (as they call it) is $61,700. / $250,000. Or 24.68%. That is a lot lower than 33% that people are led to believe the tax rate is. 33% is the Marginal not the real tax rate.

Additionally I want to say let's face it FICA is a tax. Call it what you like but they remove it from your gross earnings just like "income tax." Lower wage earners are paying a larger percentage of there earnings then the highest bracket for FICA.

So the kicker is that if a person earned $349,700. and had a huge tax hike from the current 33% to 38% that person would currently only pay a 2.2% rise in their average tax or real tax rate they paid on their money (less than 2.2% for any amount under $349,700). However if Obama keeps his promise and I believe he will and does not raise Income Tax on earnings under $250,000. then that same person earning $349,700. would only see a 1.73% rise in their average tax or real tax rate they paid on their money (less than 1.73% for any amount under $349,700). That is the truth about our progressive tax structure. Again I reached out into the sky and pulled a raise from 33% to 38% in that tax bracket because it is a sizable increase that would be criticized politically; I think most of you can consider it believable that a 5% tax hike would be considered huge politically. I chose $349,700. because it is the top earnings in the current bracket above $250.000. and would provide the maximum tax hike. When assuming that Obama would not raise taxes above $250,000. I simply taxed the income above $250,000 up to $349,700. at 38% and tacked it onto our existing $61,700.00. we were paying on $250,000. That is how the IRS does it so I did it the same way.

I can't be any more transparent then that in my declarations. I am not trying to trick anyone. I am making the point that a Marginal Tax Rate hike will never appear as severe as it looks by the top rate increase.

(Believe me this post was a lot of work)(A lot of work went into formatting the text to get the desired outcome)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I read (and I hope my numbers are correct) the top 1-5% of income earners pay more in taxes then the total of the lower 95-99%%(im not sure if it was the top 1 or 5 % so thats why the double numbers)

Good Donkey your post was spot on... And based on the fact that most people in the higher tax amounts can and do use more deductions they dont even pay the whole 1.7% in the end...

I still think a flat rate is the best way to go...

My only concern is very basic... Should we be lowering taxes when we cant balance our budget and pay down our debt?

Like I said I would rather pay my taxes during the year and get this debt paid down , then get another rebate, or tax decrease... But I dont like to be in debt..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "...with the financial debacle which is the result of Democrat policies."

Sorry bud, but the current financial debacle is easily the result of George Bush and his policies. What's more, he took a surplus from the Clinton government and turned it into the single largest deficit in US history. The US budget has been at it's worst deficit FIVE TIMES in bush's 8 years in office... that's in the entire history of the USA. If it were still the Dems in control and they still had the surplus that the Dems built, they could have easily paid off any trouble like you have now, with money to spare. And we all know bush pushed things in this direction -- and thank god he wasn't allowed to deregulate things even MORE like he (and McCain) both stood for -- and could have helped prevent the severity of it at ANY time during his presidency. But, like when the planes hit the towers on 9/11, he sat there with blank eyes and watched things go downhill.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simon - You really think Team Obama's policies would be more effective than Team McCain's policies to deal with the financial debacle which is the result of Democrat policies?

First, I haven't actually said what my opinions are on that topic.

Second, you can't seem to let that "it's all the Democrats' fault" thing go and you have no comeback to numerous people who have pointed out that while the Republicans controlled the White House and Congress they neither foresaw or did anything to prevent the impending crisis. I do recall numerous reassurances from President Bush about how strong the economy was though, and I understand McCain is going to keep all those tax cuts for the rich in place. Following the policies of an incompetent who let the financial crisis happen (although I agree its causes predate his administration) looks pretty stupid to me.

Tax cuts for the working and middle classes make more sense to me. As for the rich, they can afford to pay more and some of those Wall Street bankers walking away from collapsed banks with huge bonuses arguably deserve to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Smith..

Hate to disagree with you on part of your statement, but we never had a real surplus(we had a budget surplus and it wasnt enough to lower the debt any real amount--the total for his time was around 336billion-442billion) since we never had a debt free year in the Clinton Administration, we actually had an increase in the national debt under him too. Mind you it was only half of what it is now and Bush did a horrid job keeping the debt in check. And according to all information on the two candidates the problem will increase between 3.5 trillion - 5.7 trillion with them (lower is Obama)

Use the tool on this federal site (it will only let you go back to 1-4-1993 but it gives a good picture of the year to year increase in the debt..

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5

Im one who would rather pay the taxes (since after deductions and such Im not going to pay anything at the end of the year) and have the goverment paying as it goes, but allot would rather have the goverment push this off to my grandkids...

I have always felt that way. I have always been willing to pay a little more in taxes if it would accomplish something. I know that is not what you said but I also apply that to keeping the debt down. Right now I have so many mixed feelings. I am very concerned about our economy and I would accept many exceptions if it will revive our economy in the long run. I take the unpopular view that we needed to bail out the banks. I have railed against Bush tax cuts in the past. I think it is possible that Obama's tax cuts could stir our economy; I have always been for tax rebates during economic downturn because they grease a slow economy. I am also for tax cuts from Obama because I want him to be elected and further my liberal ideas; I am honest about that. I am a free trade New Democrat; I don't need to use the label progressive because I have taken the abuse of being a liberal for decades now. One of the things I have agreed with as a New Democrat is that we need to end tax and spend policies. I am definitely for balancing the budget.

I use the term budget surplus to mean an annual budget surplus. I realize budget surplus is a misnomer. I have often said Clinton had budget surpluses. I mean to say that Clinton had some annual budget surpluses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Joe 'The Plumber"

1) Unlicensed plumber for ten years (Now he is working on his license?!)

2) Has admitted he was nowhere near being able to buy the business he works for.

3) Has also admitted that the business he wants to buy doesn't make close to $250,000 a year. ( He would not be taxed but actually receive a refund under Obama)

4) Owes back taxes

5) Voted for McCain earlier this year.

Another hypocrite coming to light. Why doesn't the McCain campaign VET people before putting them in the spotlight?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I use the term budget surplus to mean an annual budget surplus. I realize budget surplus is a misnomer. I have often said Clinton had budget surpluses. I mean to say that Clinton had some annual budget surpluses."

I second that!

Anyway, I meant to come on here and make a comment about The Onion/YouTube fake add. I was completely fooled by it too (as were many on here). Very well done! Of course, it still points out some truths about McCain being a philanderer, etc., which makes it even funnier. Good job, Onion. I usually hate reading (seeing) things on that site.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith: "the current financial debacle is clearly the result of George Bush and his policies"

You mean his policy of not throwing all the Democrats out of the Congress so that they can't stand in the way of reforming the system?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Theoninon.com has been around forever, and its a kick in the pants after a long day of listen to the political and financial woes of the world... Ive posted some things from there, but I always say its a joke post because they do such a good job of making it seem real...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jwills9: "Another hypocrite ( Joe the Plumber )"

The guy wants to buy a plumbing business which would earn more than $250,000 which would put him in Obama's tax increase, which would make it difficult to hire more workers or expand his business.

I'd rather have Joe the Plumber over to my home for dinner than people who call him a hypocrite.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith: "the current financial debacle is clearly the result of George Bush and his policies"

You mean his policy of not throwing all the Democrats out of the Congress so that they can't stand in the way of reforming the system?

So you think it would be a good idea for the executive branch to have the power to expel from Congress democratically-elected members of the legislative branch? Never mind about Obama and his socialist policies, that's the kind of thing they do in places like Zimbabwe.

Anyway, are you ever going to acknowledge the fact that from 2003 until 2006 it was virtually impossible for the Democrats in Congress to stop anything that the President wanted to do? George W. Bush could have reformed the system any way he liked.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simon - "George W. Bush could have reformed the system any way he liked"

He could not. You do not understand American politics.

Are you ever going to acknowledge that this policy of giving home loans to people who should never have gotten them originated with Jimmy Carter and intensified during the Clinton years?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OH horsepucky. They have not had a filibuster proof majority, nor have they had a supermajority. The two party system HAS BEEN IN EFFECT for the past few years, allowing the give/take that makes the system work most of the time.

And even if that was the case... your argument doesn't take into account the 20+ times this has been addressed by Bush and the republicans SINCE full blown, veto-proof, control went to the "most ethical" group in history.

It doesn't matter how much you hate Bush or the last 8 years. You would have to be a political moron to not understand the dangers in having a supermajority sharing the same political platform as the President. Especially a socialist like Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"George W. Bush could have reformed the system any way he liked."

I really enjoy seeing posts like this.

The Left spent 7 years accusing George Bush of abusing the executive powers his office grants him and trying to take over the gov't, the country and the entire world.

But when the economy goes into one of those inevitable periods of turmoil they accuse him of not having fully used the power of the president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Judging George Bush and trying to decide whether to elect another Republican is a no-brainer. One simple question is enough. Are you better off under George Bush or under the previous Democratic President William Clinton? From Iraq to the present econmic meltdown, the Republican President, Bush, has been a complete disaster. If you want more of the same, with a dash of eye candy, then McCain is your man.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Are you better off under George Bush or under the previous Democratic President William Clinton?"

Did William Clinton do anything to catch Osama bin Laden or otherwise prevent future devastating terrorist attacks? Oh, jeez, this is getting off topic - happens every time I respond to liberals' posts...

buttamimi, good try at blaming Bush for the Democrat financial debacle, but, as, William Clinton would say, that dog won't hunt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually, Sarge, the present financial meltdown is a direct consequence of dregulation and the trickle down economic philsophy of Reagan and Thatcher, and which, unfortunately, people like Tony Blair and George Bush endorced and continued, blindly. Now, back to the simple question: Are you better off under Bush or President Clinton? Better off meaning, for the most part, financially.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Are you better off under George Bush or under the previous Democratic President William Clinton? "

You need a little perspective on things:Clinton and America were better off because the country and the world had 8 years of Reagan.

It's no coincidence that the only post WW2 Dem president elected to two terms came between the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the attacks of 9-11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

coulrophobic said:

You need a little perspective on things:Clinton and America were better off because the country and the world had 8 years of Reagan

coulrophobic will be saying the same thing after Obama gets our economy going again. It will take awhile to see prosperity again but when we do coulrophobic will be saying it is because our country and the world had 8 years of George W. Bush. Our prosperity in the mid to late 90's was due to President Clinton don't let these NeoCon's fool you. They write books to explain why even though the Clinton years were prosperous and the Bush years sucked it was the Republicans who made the good years and the Democrats who made the bad. They have hatched a plan to blame the housing crisis on the Democrats also. They say it had nothing to do with the lenders taking on too much risk it was because the Democrats forced the lenders to give loans to the poor. Even though there is ample evidence that lending institutions exempt from the laws governing the inclusion of lower income loans were making just as many bad loans as those who were subject to the law. They are also talking about a law that was passed under Jimmy Carter and modified under Clinton. We had so many boon years that defy their explanation, under that legislation before Bush came along, but it was the best explanation that they could come up with to blame the Democrats - weak. Don't buy into the NeoCon lies. The Republicans want a corporate welfare state (to get votes). Our corporations don't need babysitting. They need help in a crisis like our current one but they excelled just fine under Clinton. He helped trade to flourish in America and that was why he succeeded in the best economy most of us have seen in our adult lives; along with federal budgets that were better managed.

Reelect Obama in 2012

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simon - "George W. Bush could have reformed the system any way he liked" He could not. You do not understand American politics.

Let's see. White House and both Houses of Congress under the control of one party, and the opposition can still stop the President from enacting the policies he wants to? I thought this was the President who said he had political capital and intended to spend it. I also thought Bush was still in a strong enough position to block legislation the Democratic majority in Congress want to enact. Am I missing something fundamental?

Are you ever going to acknowledge that this policy of giving home loans to people who should never have gotten them originated with Jimmy Carter and intensified during the Clinton years?

(shrug) If you like. Does it actually matter?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

buttamimi - In my case, I'm better off now financially than I was when Clinton was president.

Obama is benefiting from having an economic slowdown just before the election, and, if he's elected, no matter what he does or doesn't do, the economy will rebound because it always does. But if he gets his tax hikes through it's gonna put a damper on economic growth. By the way, I hear Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il are practically delerious at the prospect of an Obama victory.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge said:

But if he gets his tax hikes through it's gonna put a damper on economic growth.

I can only hope it is as bad as the damper that President William Jefferson Clinton put on our economic growth with his tax hikes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The only way for the government to provide a tax cut is to cut spending or accept more debt. Anything else isn't a tax cut - it's simply a tax change.

Obama's plan is nothing but pure pandering to people's greed versus a basic human principle of enjoying the fruits of one's own labors.

Obama's Robin Hood (i.e. government are a bunch of hoods who rob us) approach isn't exactly noble in a nation whose middle class enjoy multiple cars, robust bellies, and more electronic gadgets than needed. Not exactly the poor starving masses of a fuedal system.

As is so often the case when one person points out anothers' "greed" they actually expose their own as well. Most coins have two sides.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey - Bill Clinton presided over the dot com bubble which burst at the end of his presidency.

By the way, why do you think Putin, Ahmadinejad and Kimmy are delerious at the prospect of an Obama presidency?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge:

I hope you enjoy your dinner. You are wrong!!! It has been reported by the news and "Joe the Plumber" that the business he wants to buy doesn't make anywhere close to $250,000 a year. He wouldn't be paying higher taxes under Obama. He would get a tax credit which he could use to pay the taxes he still owe. He had no plans of buying that business anytime soon. He still hasn't paid owed taxes. He is even further away from getting his plumbing license. He has been in the business for ten years.

He is a hypocrite because he portrayed Obama as the cause of his business setbacks. In reality, it due to other factors like his own procrastination that is the root cause. Read my post again he should have been vetted because he is telling half truths.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jwills79 - Joe the Plumber wants to buy a plumbing business that will make more than $250,000 a year, thus subjecting him to an Obama tax increase. He is not a hypocrite.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"George W. Bush could have reformed the system any way he liked."

I really enjoy seeing posts like this. The Left spent 7 years accusing George Bush of abusing the executive powers his office grants him and trying to take over the gov't, the country and the entire world.

But when the economy goes into one of those inevitable periods of turmoil they accuse him of not having fully used the power of the president.

Well, what did he actually do to stop this from happening? It's not as if he had much trouble getting other parts of his policy agenda through Congress, like all those tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Some Democrats even voted for them. I'm aware that the administration wanted to introduce tighter regulation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003 but appears to have given up in the face of Democratic opposition. Don't know what difference it would have made to what all those banks were doing, but it doesn't sound like a bad idea. Why didn't they fight harder for it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jwills79 - Joe the Plumber wants to buy a plumbing business that will make more than $250,000 a year, thus subjecting him to an Obama tax increase. He is not a hypocrite.

Indeed not. Neither is he going to have trouble paying for health insurance, his kids' college fees or just about anything else he wants if he's earning that kind of money. But it sounds like he'll need it for all those back taxes he owes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simon - ( sigh ) Yes, indeed, Joe the Plumber wants to buy a plumbing business that will make more than $250,000 a year, thus subjecting him to a Obama tax increase. But he wouldn't have $250,000 to spend all on himself - he would have to pay all his employees and all other expenses out of that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But he wouldn't have $250,000 to spend all on himself - he would have to pay all his employees and all other expenses out of that.

Now here's where I admit I need something to be clarified. Is the idea to impose the extra tax on the business he owns or the money that he's personally taking home from it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

P.S. I ask because it's been reported that the company Mr. Wurzelbacher wants to buy only earns about $100,000 a year (MSNBC) and Bloomberg News noted that even if Newell Plumbing did make $250,000 or more after all the necessary expenses had been deducted, he would be left with about $150,000 in taxable income.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simon,

Why quibble over the amount? It's completely arbitrary. IMO Obama should raise the taxes on everyone making over $80K and anyone who makes less shouldn't pay any. There's no guiding principle behind any of this, so just stick it to those who make more than you for your own bennefit.

This is also why I think we should one world government. Almost all citizens of every developed nation have it better than the rest of the world. So we should forcibly confiscate from Canada, U.S., Japan, western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, etc. and give to everyone else.

Of course, in the U.S. we have a Constitution based on principles of equality of opportunity and basic rights to own property and be protected in that right. However, the current and future (Obama/Dem) U.S. government has shown it can easily set aside the Constitution.

Flat tax anyone? Not that a flat tax is "fair", but at least it's not as criminal as a "progressive" tax. I'd actually prefer a citizen tax where every citizen pays their equal portion of the fed budget. This would really put taxation and representation on an equal footing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5,

Lowering tax rates is not the same as lowering taxes. McCain does lower tax rates. If you want to claim that Obama's tax calculator--an approximation tool--is correct, then run some numbers which show that there is no tax cut under McCain's plan. Try $20,000, single, no dependents. I don't think you can argue that tax cuts run across all income brackets and use the numbers that you inputted for Joe as evidence that Obama's own approximation tool proves the point.

My point was that the co-director of the Tax Policy Center opined that Joe would probably not get a tax break under McCain. Now, I guess, would be the time to "doh" you if you are going to take the liberty of "doh-ing" me as you did in your previous post. However, if you want to say that the co-director was ignorant of the results derived from the Tax Policy Center approximation tool, I guess that's possible. However, I think it more likely that before he opened his mouth to pontificate on this topic he did some research of his own and took a finer cut at what the real numbers would be.

So, when you say there is no choice but to accept the conclusion that Joe would receive no tax break under McCain, I don't think that's true. Again, if McCain was confident that he would decrease Joe's taxes, I didn't hear him say so. Did you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

What economic recovery? Besides, that really wasn't my point, was it?

My point was that we spend more than we earn. Recent Republican administrations have chosen to increase spending while reducing taxes. Borrow and spend. This simply spreads debt to future generations. And no matter how much John McCain thinks he can trim the defense budget, there is no solution to this without unacceptable cuts in social programs.

To avoid this, we have to increase taxes or reduce spending. Either one of those will torpedo any economic recovery that we might have. The economy will recover when either the fundamentals have been realigned or when enough economic Prozac has been pumped into the system. The latter is not recovery. It is mood control and it does not solve the problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Recent Republican administrations have chosen to increase spending while reducing taxes. Borrow and spend.

This is a form of income redistribution which should be recognized as such. We are taking money from future taxpayers to pay for expenditures in the present. However, this is not going to be possible much longer; China's economic growth is slowing and their own domestic demand has been disappointing. They need to sell to us to keep buying our debt.

McCain himself opposed the GWB tax cuts on the grounds "it's the middle and lower earners who need relief." Any money which goes into their pockets will stay in the country. By contrast, in this age of globalization the wealthy may chose to expand their businesses overseas, in countries where government, as opposed to employer-paid health care, relieves them of a huge burden. Even those which invest in developing countries find the costs as a lot lower than what GM, which spends more on employee health insurance than steel, confronts here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a form of income redistribution which should be recognized as such. We are taking money from future taxpayers to pay for expenditures in the present.

Super point Betzee. I'd also like to point out that printing lots of paper money (deflating the value of the dollar) is also an income redistribution (money flows from savers to debtors).

What I'm looking for is the candidate who says "Not only will I NOT give you nationalized health care and subsidized green energy - but I WILL also take away corporate welfare, foreign welfare, remove our troops from overseas, and eliminate individual welfare." That's the person who'll get my vote.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What I'm looking for is the candidate who says "Not only will I NOT give you nationalized health care and subsidized green energy - but I WILL also take away corporate welfare, foreign welfare, remove our troops from overseas, and eliminate individual welfare." That's the person who'll get my vote.

Wasn't that sort of Ron Paul's agenda? He was dismissed as a fringe player this time. But he's already gearing up for 2012 when he maybe harder to dismiss.

If you look back at the debates about economic policy of the 1960s and 1970s, the trade-off is between full employment and inflation. Democrats tended to pursue policies which maximized job creation but with that came inflation. Republicans were the reverse.

Opening the door to imports enabled us to enjoy low levels of unemployment without risking inflation. But, in the process, it eroded the value of the dollar since we began to run high trade deficits, most recently with China.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wasn't that sort of Ron Paul's agenda? He was dismissed as a fringe player this time. But he's already gearing up for 2012 when he maybe harder to dismiss.

I hope your right about 2012. We might be surprised at how many people who are fiscal conservatives are willing to get behind him - despite big differences in social views (left v right). Ron's platform is to allow local people to determine social issues for themselves (based on 10th Amendment of Constitution) and limit federal government to those powers outlined in the Constitution.

In fact, this may be a platform that you and I could agree to despite many differences of philosophy. I really do appreciate and respect your posts even though I disagree with a fair number of them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Are you better off under George Bush or under the previous Democratic President William Clinton?"

Fact is that the vast majority of americans, making 250k or less a year are paying LESS taxes under Bush than they did under bubba. It's a fact. Head on over to the tax foundation and research it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Poor "Joe the Plumber", getting taxed on his fantasy future income like that . Keep dreaming the American dream Joe, you aspirational voting Republican guy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain ain't got much left. I guess he realizes picking Sarah 'winkywinky' Palin, has backfired. Now all he seems to have left are robocalls: 'The McCain campaign has launched a second robocall campaign painting Barack Obama as terrorist sympathizer and a potential threat to national security.'How low can it go?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites