McCain warns Obama is big taxer

John McCain is going to tax me for my employer paid health care benefits. That $5000.00 tax credit doesn't cover the amount that my taxes would be raised.

All bull. < :-)

You may be right Weasel, but I want to see the george bush tax breaks killed first.

Then we can go from there and talk about tax increases all around. < :-)

The Republicans at this stage should not be given a another opportunity to further destroy the economy. They have had the last 8 years and look where we are now. I see no reason why the other party should not be given a chance.

Right, because Obama says he will cut taxes on the top 5%, that means he is really going to raise taxes on the middle class. Not only raise them but "tax and spend". So that means that Americans should vote for the party that is not going to cut taxes on the top 5%, because that helps the middle class. The party that doesn't believe in "tax and spend", they believe in "spend and don't tax", and have spent the last 8 years running up a $10 trillion national debt.　And that is just the official figure. McCain is getting into real Alice in Wonderland territory here.

Obama reneged shamelessly on his pledge to use public financing.

What makes people think he won't implement much more confiscatory tax policies than what he and the likes of George Soros have cooked up?

Add to that the completely cavalier attitude Pelosi, Reid and Schumer have displayed these last few months, where their casual comments have sparked runs on banks and in Reid's case the stock of the entire insurance sector, and we are looking at a frightening future for America and by extension the entire world.

Oops, meant to say raise taxes on the top 5% of course. Cut the tax cuts is what I was meaning. Sorry for the mistake, but I am a confused old man too.

What about, McCain and Bush send America and the world to deep nightmare. Gift to rich more than US$ 700,000 M, US$ 700,000 M from the pocket of poor people end now McCain said that is Obama guilt. Save USA from Bush and McCain

LuisVargas.tk

Hahaha... this smacks of the hypocrisy in McCain's comment yesterday that Obama will 'say anything'! Hilarious!

Ronald Reagan coined the phrase "tax and spend Democrat" to make Democrats appear fiscally irresponsible while painting Republicans as fiscally responsible defenders of taxpayers. However, rather than being fiscally responsible he became the first big "borrow and spend Republican." In the process, he created a situation where the next Democratic administration was forced to raise taxes in order to start paying down the debts that Reagan's administration incurred, thereby reinforcing the image of Democrats as the party of "tax and spend" policies.

Bush has followed the exact same path. As a result, all Americans will have to pay more in taxes (whether in the form of income taxes, the social security tax, or some other form of taxation) in order to pay for the tremendous debts that the Bush administration has incurred in the name of the American people. This has enabled McCain to label Obama as another "tax and spend Democrat," when the reality is that whoever becomes the next President of the US will have to raise taxes, if for no other reason then simply to pay the interest on the debt that the current administration has racked up.

Obama reneged shamelessly on his pledge to use public financing.

And McCain flip-flopped on the GWB tax cuts; his opposition to them back in 2001 sounded eerily similar to the argument Obama is making now for progressive taxation (distinct from socialism which is government ownership of assets as is occurring under a Republican administration through the Wall Street bail-out).

Predictably Republicans are sounding the alarm that a Democratic White House coupled with a Democratic Congress would usher in a new era of "big spending." But, anyone who has managed to stay awake for the last eight years will certainly ask themselves, "Is it really possible that Democrats could dig us into a hole of debt any deeper than the GWB administration?"

the reality is that whoever becomes the next President of the US will have to raise taxes, if for no other reason then simply to pay the interest on the debt that the current administration has racked up."

That is correct. However, you do understand that governments do work with a deficit. Both of these candidates plans are basically doomed to fail. You paint this problem as a soley republican created problem, when it is not. Just on the needed basics the government can not get out of its debt. It doesn't take in that much. One reason we do have a debt was due to Bush's tax cuts (we pay less taxes than we did under Clinton, in fact almost half.)

Anyway, since the article is about McCain calling Obama a big taxer, he is not wrong as Obama is going to have to raise taxes all around and if he goes ahead and starts taxing those of us over 250k on giving a bigger relief to the mid class, the defict is going to climb way up. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/09/AR2008080901860_pf.html

What McCain is not telling anyone is that he too we have no choice but to raise taxes as well if, IF, bring down the deficit is that much of a concern.

One thing either of these two can do is start slashing the government size and spending. Allow states to keep what they take in as well as locals.

What's with you not paying taxes, it's a contract you have as a citizen, get it paid and create a just, fair society.

Old Man McCain has become a joke. We need no lectures from the Republicans on running the economy. They had their chance and screwed up big-time

We will be trying Obama's tax plan. < :-)

"We need no lectures from the Republicans on running the economy. They had their chance and screwed up big time."

Despite having our airline industry and our economy take a huge hit from the 9/11 attacks, for 7 years, the U.S. economy performed, in the words of Alan Greenspan, "remarkably well," until the Democrat policy-inspired sub-prime mortgage crisis hit, just in time for the election. We need no lectures from the Democrats on running the economy. Anyone remember Jummy Carter?

"We will be trying Obama's tax plan"

That would be a big mistake.

That's Jimmy Carter, of course...

What does he or she know or care of the middle class? Nothing. Is even Kansas saying it's all too much? You betcha.

http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/855324.html

Here's an interesting article: "Secret of Obama tax plan revealed?"

www.amercanthinker.com/2008/10/secret_of_obama_tax_planned_re.html

You know what, I read an online blog at another post here in the states about a man who did an unscientific experiment on the Obama tax plan.

In a nutshell he did this, he states that on his way to lunch he passed a homeless guy with a sign the read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, thinking what a coincidence (between the homeless guy and the server). When the bill came he decided not to tip the server and explained to him that he was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. The server stood there in disbelief while he told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who he deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from his sight. He went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as he decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of his rather unscientific redistribution experiment he realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that he gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

Is this a true story, maybe it is or isn't, but I think it pretty much sums up the feelings of many Americans on both side of the political line. I am for helping the poor, and making sure that there are safety nets for people who fall on hard times to offer support. But I am not for taking my hard earned money that I have worked for after I make a specific amount as probably what would happen under Obama, and then give it to someone else to "spread it out and even things up."

I imagine as a clear thinking American, that the only way that the US will be able to drive the deficit down will be to in the future raise taxes, after first that gov't spending is curtailed. I know that it is coming. McCain/Palin in 2012 will have their "read my lips no new taxes" moment if they win this time and try to run again in 2012, but Obama is not in my opinion being true by saying that he will offer a tax cut for America.

The majority of Americans who he says will get tax cuts don't pay any taxes anyway (yes they do pay them but when they file their returns they get a refund, and under his plan in addition to their refund they will probably get more than they paid) but those who make over a certain amount (and I don't think it is the $250,000) will not get the extra "refund" and wind up paying more in taxes.

My choice McCain. At least I know that in the future, I will probably see a tax cut, but maybe a better chance of him at least slowing gov't spending rather than Obama who is saying he will give me everything and then no come through with it.

"tax and spend Democrat" was coined around FDR's time.

DrBombay, thanks for that unscientific (very unscientific) blog excerpt.

Some things you should realize is that representing the top 5 percent of the wealthy or any wealthy person with a waiter is completely, absolutely, and totally stupid beyond words. The writer obviously has no clue how a waiter scrimps every dollar while the wealthy "go without" a new limo for the fleet this year. Also ridiculous is taking 100 percent of the tip and giving it all, every penny, to one person. Taxes do not work that way. Not remotely. Nor do they fall out the blue sky as surprise, this is now taxed, right this minute.

The most interesting thing about the blog was how totally misleading it was at the most basic of levels. I sincerely hope you come to realize just how thoroughly ridiculous that was. It is in no way representative of anything either candidate proposes. If you still think is, I recommend doing high school and college over again. Seriously. --Cirroc

YangYong at 09:56 AM JST - 25th October

"What's with you not paying taxes, it's a contract you have as a citizen, get it paid and create a just, fair society." First of all, I never made a contract, saying such implied some type of servatude. Least you not forget the whole idea of the Boston tea party and btw, it has been proved many times that the government can run without taking taxes.. So, are you going to go on that Biden thing "it's the patriotic thing to do" Well, while these guys give themselves raises, send money to what ever hell hole of a place, build an office and section for every single little problem.. and you want to belittle me for being upset about paying taxes?

I don't mind paying into a tax system, but I would like for us to have more control over it and that means to let the public know exactly what we are paying for - sorry but I dont think paying for things like Hollywood just so we can keep movies in the US.. many other things.

until the Democrat policy-inspired sub-prime mortgage crisis hit, just in time for the election.

Interesting. So everything was fine until we come to the end of a two-term president who had Congress in his pocket for six years? That is quite the delayed reaction!

It seems to me that the Republicans also favored the policies. So if the policies were wrong, then the Republicans are guilty of not seeing the problems coming while being much closer to the problem.

But I don't think their was anything wrong with the policies. It was how the policies were handled by both lenders and borrowers that was the problem. For example, when lending to low income borrowers, it is necessary to keep interests rates low. My understanding is that interest rates were often raised, summarily and without notice. I have experienced lenders doing this to me myself, and not at all strangely, my payment record began to slip. Add to that the unpredictable drop in housing value. That made it difficult for people to refinance.

Anyone remember Jummy Carter?

Here we go. When all else fails, you whip out your Jimmy Carter voodoo doll. What does he have to do with this besides your silly partisan rancor? --Cirroc

sarge: "Despite having our airline industry and our economy take a huge hit from the 9/11 attacks, for 7 years, the U.S. economy performed, in the words of Alan Greenspan, "remarkably well," until the Democrat policy-inspired sub-prime mortgage crisis hit, just in time for the election. We need no lectures from the Democrats on running the economy. Anyone remember Jummy Carter?"

sarge, do you mean Alan Greenspan, the man who is now under fire and insists that, despite being 'shocked' by how dramatically things have gone down the toilet, but insists it's not at all any of his fault? He's right in part; the fault lies with bush and his 8 years of policies that could have EASILY prevented how things have and are playing out now. Instead, he created tax cuts for the rich and was in power to ensure protection against legislature that could have tightened regulations on giving out loans. The Republicans created this mess, and had HEAPS of chances during their 8 years to reverse it... we need not be lectured from the likes of 'I don't know anything about the economy' (his own words) McCain.

It is completely amazing how anyone here could come out batting for the top 5 percent income earners. The overwhelming majority of them get their money from simple ownership and/or inheritence. Any skills or work they do is special, uncommon, and at the high levels, therefore they receive greater compensation when they do it. I don't have a problem with that basically, but lets not be ridiculous. What they do can rarely be called "hard work". They pay a higher tax rate because they have so much fat to tax. We are talking people with not one mansion on the beach, but a couple, that in addition to a few estates elsewhere. We are talking ridiculous amounts of wealth here. Meanwhile poor and middle class families are being foreclosed upon.

Nobody is asking you to storm the mansions or burn them down. All you have to do is support raising their taxes a mere three percent.

If you think you are somehow going to benefit by pampering their little hinnies a little more, I think you need to wake the heck up. They are not suffering and they are not going to bail us out of our enormous debt (which they also helped us rack up) out of the goodness of their hearts or any brown-nosing. --Cirroc

If anything Obama is even more milquetoast than Carter.

Least you not forget the whole idea of the Boston tea party

skipthesong, I think you must not know what the idea of the Boston tea party was.

it has been proved many times that the government can run without taking taxes

No it hasn't. But what the government does not need to do is tax the poor and middle class with the income tax system that started to fund WWI and strangely, has not ended yet. I guess we have not finished paying for WWI yet? --Cirroc

I am for helping the poor, and making sure that there are safety nets for people who fall on hard times to offer support. But I am not for taking my hard earned money that I have worked for after I make a specific amount as probably what would happen under Obama, and then give it to someone else to "spread it out and even things up."

Today Sarah Palin gave a presumably heartfelt speech, noting "[t]he true measure of society is how it treats its most vulnerable." (Interestingly, I heard liberal Arianna Huffington make exactly the same point a few weeks ago.) Specifically, Governor Palin was referring to special needs children, like her younger son, arguing their education was a "vital need" and therefore would (or should) be exempted from the funding freeze McCain has talked about to reign in federal spending. (She even went as far as to the federal government, that would be the taxpayers, should subsidize private education for such children.)

Yet, as liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald notes:

Funding for improved educational opportunities and research for special-needs children is certainly a proper and important role for government, but as is so often the case on the Right when it comes to government spending, "vital" apparently means "programs that benefit me," while any that don't -- those that only benefit "others" -- can be slashed and frozen as unnecessary.

This observation hits upon a distinction I have noticed (over and over again) between those who fall on the right and those who fall on the left side of the political spectrum: the latter are capable of feeling empathy whereas the former can only muster sympathy.

To put it in more personal terms, I can understand the hardship of others without experiencing it myself. (Ditto for Arianna Huffington whose pampered teenage daughters volunteer in a shelter for homeless families.) Whereas I doubt Governor Palin would be advocating funding for "special needs" children as a "vital expense" had she not given birth to one herself.

Those who can only act on the basis sympathetic feelings must first be thrust into the situation themselves in order to appreciate it. This is why conservatives can become more “liberal,” in reality accepting, after tragedy has been visited upon them (or in the case of a mundane matter, they learn a beloved family member is gay like Fox News' Laura Ingraham). In short, it becomes less "other" when they discover it in someone they know which makes it possible for them to personally relate to.

Having waited tables myself (in a cash only joint way back when), I always tip in cash even though it enables food servers to avoid declaring the income for tax purposes. I think I would do that anyway, particularly for good service. I eat out a fair bit and have never encountered anyone in the service industry with a political message on their sleeve, nor would most "revenue maximizing" restaurant owners allow it for fear of offending patrons with other points of view. And, for the record, I would never engage a food server in political conversation either; it would put them under financial pressure to agree with me or sacrifice the tip (and I'm a good tipper).

DrBombay, that is an interesting experiment, thank you for posting it. But what is totally wrong with that evaluation is that Obama doesn't want to take money from restaurant servers to give to homeless people. Obama wants the millionaires to give money to both that server and the homeless guy. There is enough money at the top to help many people on the bottom. That additional tax is hardly going to affect those people on top, but will greatly help the people on bottom.

why is there so many blind to facts and numbers as McCain wants to put out misleading statements, and actual lies about taxes? Oh everyone, I mean everyone will see higher taxes by Obama. That is BS and anyone with any common sense what so ever and that can UNDERSTAND ENGLISH has heard from the Obama political commercials, public speeches has heard where tax increases were going to occur, or accually would be be tax incentives taken away, and also should have heard what groups would benefit from tax decreases.. I would love to go person to person and ask each, what is your annual net income,, and I must stress "NET INCOME", not gross profits as I am very accustom to from having a small business for the last 32 years myself, and consider it being very successful, but never hit the 250,000 dollar net profit mark, which would have made me fall into a decrease in my taxes with Obama. This is to say that the majority of the population would be standing on the same side as myself, and I believe if you have listened to anything coming out of the Obama camp , you would have also understood the percentage of the people going to fall into the bracket of a tax break is ... 9 5 % and those that have received a tax break by Bush that do not need it or have not used it to create jobs over the last eight years would loss what they were given by Bush , at the time McCain argued was irresponsible and now uses it opposite of his position at that time , what a frggin joke. What a jerk and what a liar and as many republicans in the past have done, including Bush, will say anything and everything to get himself into office based on lies and deception. The bad part about it is,, these blinded people listen to these lies and deceptive statements and believe them as truths, which would be very funny if so much was not at stake, but these little followers will cast a vote putting these ruthless people that worship money and wealth over national security and national interests. Here we are again, eight years later, just as the shape we were in at the end of Reagan and Bush Sr. in over our heads in debt!!!!!!! But now with an economy that matches the great depression.. Yeah go republicans!!!!!

Also this Joe the Pummer crap! He is thinking of buying a business but does not make 250,000 now? hahha This idiot is a little republican brownie that him himnself would at this time benifit from Obama's tax plan, and probably would have his entire life. Plus I have not heard if this business would net him 250,000 a year and if it did he could pay 36% tax instead of the current 34%. I am sure we all could live and strive on that amount of income even with a 2% tax increase. But I know we all have greed emmbedded in us. Old Joe the plummer is a joke!

Nice you guys stand for such blinded ignorance! Just look around you! Eight years later ,,,and let us not forget... everything that goes into policy has to pass the desk of the president that has veto power so you can not blame no one other than the guy holding the veto pen! That was Bush Jr., Bush Sr., Reagan! All drove us down the same road, Debt up to our asses, and beyond this time with Bush Jr. .

Also who can argue over taking away tax breaks for those going overseas and giving incentives to those that stay here investing in the US instead of only looking at their own wealth and forgetting their origins. This is another positive from Obama and a stance that should have never even been into question and never should.

Many need to wake up and look further than just the lies thrown in their faces and take it as some sort of distorted truth. One should not be afraid of something different or afraid of change, especially with where we stand as a country today with policies that has been degrading us for many years, even beyond Mr. give everything away Bush and others before him that contributed to the give away.

We need something new, something different and the only words that has any sense of determination and commitment within his voice, plus a steady hard fast message and tone from the beginning for a different direction has been from the mouth of Barack Obama. Not like McCain saying anything and everything , going from this to that just , twisting every statement into just outright lies just to get votes from those that will believe in anything a republican politician will say. He is a typical republican politician from the corrupted system in Washington and has been one since his very beginning which has been something like 26 years. A total insider and yes he does have experience in the terms of putting this country in the shape it is right now.

I know some republicans have opened their eyes to the truth, but there seems to be many more that would like to go forward blinded by plain denial of the facts that are right here staring them in the face and in the news 24 hours every day.

Caveman: "It is completely amazing how anyone here could come out batting for the top 5 percent income earners."

I know! I'm amazed that the majority if not all of the righties on here are upset about getting taxed less and having more money in return. I guess they're so used to having their monies and freedoms taken away from bush that they just wouldn't know what to do when given a tax break from Obama.

skipthesong: Without giving what will you get back? If you want to live in a society that provides safety (police), education, water, electricity, roads, dams, ahhh... perhaps you're getting the message now? You enter a social contract with that society by being part of it... bottom line: Go read some Hume for a start.

"It is completely amazing how anyone here could come out batting for the top 5 percent income earners."

Even more amazing is how anyone actually really thinks the top 5 percent is actually going to pay more. You don't get to the top 5 percent tax bracket by being stupid. The top 5 percent isn't just going to sit meekly by and watch their tax burden rise. They have an army of tax lawyers and accountants and any potential income that would be taxed at a higher rate ain't gonna be there. The extra cash is going to be tucked-in tax shelters and trust hands so Uncle Sam can't get his mitts on it.

That is a lot of capital that will not be invested in the economy to create josb but will be in effect capital tied up in non-investments and if invested will be to companies in foriegn countries under the table through loop-holes and dodgy fronts in the Cayman islands.

In short the loot Obama is counting on to pay for his goodies through his redistribution of wealth through his tax schemes isn't going to be there.

And since Obama, and I'm pretty sure I'm on solid ground here, doesn't have a reputation as a fiscal conservative, has two options.

Cut spending..............Too funny to even try to picture him or the Democratic party of Pelosi and Reid on that one.

Raise Taxes or print more money .............. Well since he is isn't going get it from the top 5 percent where is it going to come from folks? Joe the Plumber.

Long live the Glorious Revolution of change! Because after Obama gets done with you and his tax plan on regular working stiffs so he can give it to others who would rather take the easy route and not work at their full income potential because of that nice tax subsidy given to them by Uncle Sugar. That's all a dollar is going to be worth. About 5 cents.

sarge: "Sarah Palin is not a stewardess. Grow up."

No kidding... she could never qualify as a flight attendant; the latter have to be courteous and cater to the customer. They also have to speak to the passengers, a talent Palin has shows she utterly lacks if it's anyone other than an appointed person (and even THEN she screws it up). Palin would just sit in business class the whole flight munching on premium snacks and saying it's all 'necessary for business'.

It's no wonder all the leftists here aren't concerned about Obama's tax plan. It punishes those who work hard, are successful, and ultimately create wealth for the country. And from the frequency and length of some of their posts, they apparently have lots of spare time. Does anyone actually read some of these thousand word rants?

"It is completely amazing how anyone here could come out batting for the top 5 percent income earners."

And it is completely amazing how Lefties think that when they violate the first principle of free association and punish the more accomplished in a free society with the burden of taxes they thereby transform garden variety jealousy of their betters into a something noble.

Government does not create wealth. I realize this is a concept completely foreign to the average leftist, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

Helter and coulrophobic: It'll be funny to watch your reactions when you get your tax breaks... will you shake your little fists and yell, "NOOOOOOO!!!!"?

Helter and coulrophobic: It'll be funny to watch your reactions when you get your tax breaks... will you shake your little fists and yell, "NOOOOOOO!!!!"?

Right now I'm looking at what's best for the country, not me. A concept obviously lost on you.

."It is completely amazing how anyone here could come out batting for the top 5 percent income earners."

The top 5 percent pay well over half the income taxes.

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

skipthesong, I think you must not know what the idea of the Boston tea party was." Look, I am not going to go into a history class. There is a proper point and a very simplistic point.

it has been proved many times that the government can run without taking taxes

No it hasn't. But what the government does not need to do is tax the poor and middle class with the income tax system that started to fund WWI and strangely, has not ended yet. I guess we have not finished paying for WWI yet? --Cirroc" Yes, it has. Take a look at how the military runs some of its basic needs. And while you are blaming GWB for the entire budge, debt, and financial crises, I urge you to take a look at this: http://www.federalbudget.com/

I am not even taking a side. Either of these two are going to raise your taxes. I do not agree that it should be anyone's duty to pay a tax on money you earn especially has no one in office has even tried to make the government, thus the costs, smaller. The government continues to grow and grow with no end in sight.

Eventually even the middle class will pay the war and the bailout.

But I don't want the george bush tax cuts to continue. < :-)

The reality to face is that in the last 8 years Republicans have done to the country what Democrats do to their interns.

goodDonkey,

"tax and spend Democrat" was coined around FDR's time.

So was McCain.

Here is a break down with numbers, pictures, and colorful graphs for those of you that still cant understand who is taxing who.

http://www.stefanhayden.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/obama_mccain_taxcut.gif

one more time as the underscores were omitted between obama mccain and taxcut.

http://www.stefanhayden.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/obama_mccain_taxcut.gif

From my earlier post, I said it was "unscientific" but to just relate a story. I think that the feelings of most of the middle class (which I am part of) is not so much making it easier for the wealthy 5% of the US taxpayers, but what I see as a potential increased tax burden under Obama. He may not call them tax increases, but what will most likely happen is a change in the way tax credits are determined, so that in effect my tax rate will not increase on one hand, but the amounts that I can deduct for tax credits will decrease. For those who do not make as much to be taxed more, their taxes will not increase, but the credits that they had sought that enabled them to at least recoup some of the tax money will go away. Net effect, those in the middle who may not have as much money that the rich may have to offset this will be left holding the tax burden, while those who may have paid fewer taxes but with more credits will fell their tax burden increased when those various tax credits will go away.

I am all for paying my "fair share" of my tax burden. But I am not about paying my taxes and seeing my money wasted.

From my earlier post, I said it was "unscientific" but to just relate a story.

One that doesn't address the specifics of our current situation. It's impossible to imagine an administration going through as much money as the GWB administration has over the past eight years. When a government runs huge deficits it is engaging in wealth distribution from future income earners to present ones. Yet none of those touting the McCain plan acknowledge that. Well, you'll have to take that up with your kids (or grandkids) at some point I would expect.

John McCain has committed himself to making the GWB tax cuts, which he opposed, permanent, keeping the war in Iraq going indefinitely, and balancing the budget by cutting earmarks. You believe that? Yesterday Governor Palin advocated the public underwrite private education for special-needs children like her own young son. She blamed Congressional earmarks for siphoning money from special-needs education and called for "fully funding" the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Earmarks amount, at most, to USD 20 billion a year. This plan lacks a shred of fiscal credibility, yet collectively those who favor it have the nerve to ridicule the views of others.

I LOVE McCain's brother! Clearly rage and believing they ARE the law runs in the family. Too bad Obama's not as morally bereft as McCain -- the former could start a whole new campaign 'Joe Traffic Cop' and talk about how even though McCain's brother is not really have any license to direct traffic, he has been in it for many years and sure knows how to swear and tell off cops when they won't do anything to get him home earlier! hahaha...

Once again all those around McCain prove a detriment to his person and his party. Way to go, Joe.

Obama reneged shamelessly on his pledge to use public financing.

Excellent, if it defeats people as deserving of losing as Republicans. Bush reneged shamelessly on his 2000 pledge to keep the amount of discretionary government spending to the level set by his predecessor.

Had Obama handicapped himself monetarily, and subsequently loses the election, staunch Republicans like the one making the comment above would be castigating Obama for his poor strategy and decision-making. Those of us who want to see President Obama are delighted that he's using the resources at his command to achieve that purpose.

Republicans who don't like it are just as free to donate to the McCain campaign, which to me would be like shoving money at Bear Stearns.

McCain has not even made any attempt to sell his tax plan to the public because there's no need. All the base wanted to hear was his brush-off of Obama's plan as "socialism." Yet many of those who did reap a windfall from the GWB tax cuts are in fact voting for Barack Obama since they have a great stake in the continued health of our economy which they want to see their kids prosper in:

"Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get however you can get it."

When Barack Obama uttered these words, at a much-heralded speech in which he announced his plan to rescue the American economy, he received a huge ovation. That was itself remarkable, given that he delivered the speech on March 27, more than six months ago, when many of us—including the man who is now his opponent for the presidency—were paying much less attention to the economy than we are now. The ovation was more remarkable because he delivered the speech on Wall Street, to a throng of financiers.

Somehow, the nation has fallen sway to an ideology that sees government oversight as un-American. Talk of basic fairness can get someone called a commie. But the fact is, Wall Street wants someone to be in charge.

Last month, The Economist magazine conducted a poll of leading economists that delivered startling results. "A majority—at times by overwhelming margins—believe Mr. Obama has the superior economic plan, a firmer grasp of economics and will appoint better economic advisers."

http://www.metroactive.com/metro/10.15.08/cover-moneycandidate-0842.html

Despite having our airline industry and our economy take a huge hit from the 9/11 attacks..

The overall impact of the attacks 9/11 on the economy is overblown. (Of course, the US response to those attacks, like the money pit that is the Iraq war and occupation, is not.) The major carriers of the US airline industry were in trouble prior to 9/11. Carriers like Southwest and AirTran, on the other hand, were doing quite well and have continued to do so.

in the words of Alan Greenspan, "remarkably well,"

A statement that Greenspan now effectively recants with his recent testimony. Most of what was fueling the "remarkably well" economy was consumer spending driven by equity loans taken out on rising real estate prices. In other words, a house of cards.

Anyone remember Jimmy Carter?

I remember him very well. The first president to tell the nation we needed a comprehensive energy policy that started with his helping to break the back of OPEC by deregulating oil and gas prices -- yes, wise and proper deregulation can be a very good thing -- which bought the US several more decades of affordable, non-renewable energy prices. (Which Republican leadership then squandered.)

Carter also put Paul Volker in charge of the Fed. (Volker was kept on by Reagan, and is now on Obama's economic advisory team.) Volker was the one who ratcheted up interest rates to the levels necessary to put an end to the post-Vietnam inflation that had caused Nixon to order wage and price controls, and Jerry Ford to order up W.I.N. buttons.

One problem with many Republicans is that they look at George W. Bush and think they see a good president.

Right now I'm looking at what's best for the country, not me.

Riiiiight, Helter Skelter. You voted for George W. Bush twice, didn't you?

How could that have been good for the country?

Yabits,

I worked as a regulatory researcher for a venture capital firm and still keep up with former colleagues. There's tremendous excitement at the prospect of an Obama victory (amongst the very people who are in that 5 percent). Someone who appreciates the difference between innovation and speculation. If the government will invest in research for alternative energy sources we may be able to give up our dependence on fossil fuels, which is the source of power for a lot of unsavory regimes we have to spend heavily on to keep in check. But it won't happen if we follow a policy of "drill, baby, drill." That will just put us deeper into the hole we have dug ourselves into over the past eight years.

Betzee writes: "But it won't happen if we follow a policy of "drill, baby, drill." That will just put us deeper into the hole we have dug ourselves into over the past eight years."

I'll expand that and say that nothing will happen if America continues to believe in easy answers to extremely complex problems, in the energy field and elsewhere. That will just put us deeper into the hole we have been digging since Ronald Reagan came on the scene riding his white horse.

Some Americans believe that a bigger hammer will solve every problem. And that someone actually applying serious thought to problems will appear as a "milquetoast," regardless of the simple fact that history has favored brains over brawn from the beginning. Could anyone be more illustrative of this than In-curious George?

Basically, McCain is fairly shameless.

“He believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs,” McCain told a rally in Denver, Colorado.

“Senator Obama may say he’s trying to soak the rich, but it’s the middle class who are going to get put through the wringer, because a lot of his promised tax increase misses the target.”

To begin with, Obama does not believe in redistributing wealth, he believes in more progressively taxing income than we currently do. There is no wealth tax in the US (unless you die) and Obama does not propose one. There used to be a wealth tax. That didn't work so well. The phrase "spread the wealth" is correctly identified as an idiom for sharing, but it no more means redistributing wealth than "send up a trial balloon" means that we should be running off to the helium store.

Secondly, when did Obama ever say that he is trying to "soak the rich"? It is McCain who is indulging in class warfare here. And it is McCain who is distorting the clear meaning of Obama's intent. Obama's proposal to raise tax on marginal taxable income over $250K by 3 cents on the dollar, hardly amounts to "soaking" the rich. It is not even a disincentive. Show me a "rich" person who will refrain from making his 250,001st dollar of taxable income because he only receives 61 cents of it and not 64.

Third, Obama does not promise to raise taxes. He promises to lower taxes for those under $250,000 of taxable income. And if the tax program that he has proposed were to go through, taxes would be lowered. He has indicated that rolling back the tax on upper income levels to what it was before the Bush era tax-cuts would result in a tax-neutral policy. McCain says this cannot be but does not explain why.

McCain twists the truth here. And he does it right in front of your eyes. I'm hoping that you can't fool most of the people all of the time.

Sez - "Obama does not believe in redistributing wealth"

That must be why he told Joe the Plumber, "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

sarge: even your cut and pastes are no good any more.

smith - What the heck are you talking about? I merely quoted Sez and then Obama to prove that Sez' statement is without basis in fact.

Betzee - "If the government will invest in research for alternative energy sources we may be able to give up our dependence on fossil fuels, which is the source of power for a lot of unsavory regimes we have to spend heavily on to keep in check. But it won't happen if we follow a policy of "drill, baby, drill." That will just put us deeper into the hole we have dug ourselves into over the past eight years."

i agree 100%. Why do you think the Republicans can't seem to understand the simple fundamentals behind this?

What I don't understand is that when decent solar, wind turbine, wave power, etc. systems are set up that are powered by energy sources that are 100% free and will effectively last forever, why do Republicans want to spend massive amounts of borrowed money drilling for a finite resource that ultimately funds terrorist groups and unsavory regimes in the ME?

And in the same breathless sentence, the same Republicans will claim they are 'against terrorists' (but their support for oil drilling will ensure those same terrorist groups stay very well lubricated with ample funds long into the future.)

It - yet again - goes to show the Republicans are not fit to run Government.

Sarge,

I've already explained that.

Obama was not talking about spreading wealth. He was talking about sharing the income tax burden. "Spread the wealth" is an idiom for "sharing".

Income is not wealth until it is realized. In the United States, there is a tax claim against income and income does not really become wealth until that tax claim is satisfied. After taxes, if you have anything left over it becomes wealth.

All income taxation "spreads the wealth" (read "redistributes income"), whether it is progressive, flat, regressive or whimsical. The question is how the . Obama thinks his tax proposal is more equitable. So do I.

Now, if you are opposed to redistributing income and wish to do away with the income tax, I'm behind you 100%. But I hope you have a plan.

Er....

The question is how the income is spread.

Sez - Make no mistake - Obama was talking about taking money from certain people and giving it to other people. He has no clue as to how to INCREASE wealth, just take it from some and give it to others.

And in the same breathless sentence, the same Republicans will claim they are 'against terrorists' (but their support for oil drilling will ensure those same terrorist groups stay very well lubricated with ample funds long into the future.)

There are basically two kinds of Republicans: 1) The masterminds who lie their behinds off to get rich and enjoy power and 2) the zombies who follow them, mindlessly parroting the mantras of the lying mastermind while thirsting for blood and violence to please themselves and master. I hope that answers your question. --Cirroc

Sarge,

That is what all taxation does. That is even what Bush's tax cuts did. It took money from future generations and gave it to ourselves--predominantly to people who did not need it.

Cirroc ( 10:46 PM ) - That's some wild imaginaton you've got there.

"That will just put us deeper into the hole we have been digging since Ronald Reagan came on the scene riding his white horse."

Cuz we were doing so well under Carter, weren't we.

Sez - At least the Republicans strive to keep taxes low for ALL Americans, thus spurring economic growth.

ahhh... sarge:

"That's some wild imaginaton you've got there."

Ooohhh... once again, a 'wicked' response. No argument, no proof, no nothing.

"Make no mistake - Obama was talking about taking money from certain people and giving it to other people. He has no clue as to how to INCREASE wealth, just take it from some and give it to others."

Wow. You actually didn't literally cut and paste this, you just took it word for word and tried to make it your own. Of course, you as usual failed to provide any proof for your assertions.

"At least the Republicans strive to keep taxes low for ALL Americans, thus spurring economic growth."

Hahahaha! You actually believe that? Please do tell us whom the bush tax cuts affect, sarge. Tell us who will be affected if McCain has his ways and KEEPS the bush tax cuts (again, tell us EXACTLY who they affect, and provide proof instead of soundbites). And tell us about how taxing people for medical aid that their employers provide and merely giving them $5000 that won't even cover the costs of the insurance is 'keeping taxes low for ALL Americans'... while he cuts taxes for 5% of the population, of course.

Now, I have proven how poor your arguments are, try to prove me wrong. I know you'll just try to counter me with some, 'You're wrong' cut and paste, but give it a go, sarge. The reason I called your last comment so lame and devoid of any argument is because you did not at all 'prove Sez wrong', you took the first sentence of a three paragraph argument, clearly without reading the rest, and called it 'proving someone wrong'.

let's finish with another sarge classic comeback (another cut and paste from a much longer comment):

"Wrong country."

Let me give you an example of how poor your arguments are, one more time, before I sign out. Let's see... I take the 'wrong' from your 'wrong country', and make it into a 'proof'.

What you think of McCain, sarge?

'wrong'.

You'Re right, he IS wrong for the country!!

(you like it?).

What I don't understand is that when decent solar, wind turbine, wave power, etc. systems are set up that are powered by energy sources that are 100% free and will effectively last forever, why do Republicans want to spend massive amounts of borrowed money drilling for a finite resource that ultimately funds terrorist groups and unsavory regimes in the ME?

You'll have to ask them that. Oil companies are obviously an interested in party in continuing the status quo. I can understand why Sarah Palin would support oil drilling as Governor of Alaska, it provides jobs that pay quite well for those who have limited education (her future son-in-law dropped out of high school to take such a job). But as VP it's your duty to pursue policies that benefit the nation as a whole, not simply your state.

Last weekend I had a discussion with a Native American and we delved into the culture wars. He mentioned he'd heard it said many times, "Hippies never did anything for America." He pointed out they were responsible for taking alternative forms of energy like solar power into the mainstream. Native Americans knew about it from way back when, but somebody had to bring it to the attention of suburbia. Now the government needs to get serious about the transition costs associated with phasing out reliance on fossil fuels. That's much more likely to happen under an Obama administration than a McCain administration.

I don't understand why it's assumed that Obama is going to win California, whose governor, Arnie, is supporting McCain.

smith: "Please do tell us whom the bush tax cuts affect, sarge"

Yours truly and his friends, and we're definitely not rich.

"You did not at all prove Sez wrong"

I most certainly did. Re-read the posts. Sez said, "Obama does not believe in redistributing wealth," and I said, "That's why Obama told Joe the Plumber, "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Why is so difficult to admit I am correct on at least this point?

"What do you think of McCain, sarge?"

I think the Comeback Geezer and the Barracuda are going to give Obama and the Democrats the biggest surprise of their lives on Nov.4. At least that's my hope. I'm seriously worried about the prospect of my country being led by Obama.

He [Obama] has no clue as to how to INCREASE wealth...

We know that, according to wealth distribution, the United States is less a middle class nation today than in any time in over a century. If helping to build up a strong middle class is the same as increasing wealth, than vast majority of economists agree that Obama's plans will do that FAR better than McCain's.

I don't understand why it's assumed that Obama is going to win California, whose governor, Arnie, is supporting McCain.

We love Arnie but we don't follow him in lockstep. Anyways, he has not done any campaigning for McCain. By contrast, Maria has been actively involved in the Obama campaign. The Republicans thought they might have a chance in California when the courts authorized same-sex unions earlier this year, but that was fleeting.

BTW Sarge, if you plan to collect social security, that's a form of income redistribution. Ditto for GWB's prescription drug plan for seniors. Depending on your age, you can get much more out than you ever paid in and some working stiff is going to have to make up the difference.

"We know that, according to wealth distribution, the United States is less a middle class nation today than at any time in over a century"

That's debatable, but we do know that the United States today is the wealthiest nation on the face of the Earth.

"than ( the? ) vast majority of economists agree that Obama's plans will do FAR better than McCain's"

Sure, yabits, just make up stuff and post it. Sheesh. The fact is, many business leaders are seriously worried about an Obama victory.

Betzee - I do indeed plan on collecting social security - heck, I paid into it for years! But I don't plan on depending on that for my retirement.

I don't why Arnie allows his wife to campaign for Obama. He must be seriously whipped! Ha ha ha!

sarge: Again, you didn't prove anyone wrong at all, but only proved me right. Man, your last posts were so lame they barely make more than 20 words (at least your 11:57 one, which if at a 3 second glance is correct, makes 13 words total). Once more, you took a strong and intelligent comment by Sez and simply pasted in 4 words or so and commented on said words, as though you couldn't be bothered to, or at least bother making sense of, the rest. Don't ask me to understand 'at least that much' when you can't bother seeing something because you don't like the truth of it.

(on whom bush tax cuts affect)

"Yours truly and his friends, and we're definitely not rich."

Don't you live in Japan? so then, how do they affect you, sarge? Do you mean your ilk back home? Ah... so in other words, you have no idea but have simply bought into the soundbites that have told you what to believe. The fact of the matter is you are correct -- bush's tax cuts do affect you, because they give breaks to big businesses and then screw over you and your family. It's a shame you take a beating for a slap on the back.

As for 'the decider', I saw a wicked new add for Oliver Stone's "W", which throws bush and his cabal in about the correct light. Be sure to give it a look sarge. I'm sure you're head will spin over it, but that's inevitable anyway within the next three weeks when Obama is president. Enjoy!

Oh... and what do you think of 'Joe the Rageaholic', aka McCain's brother? Guess telling authority to f$$$ $ff when you don't like it runs in the family! Har har.

Now sarge, keep in mind you still haven't given me an intelligent retort, you are still merely cutting and pasting. Dig deep, my friend... dig deep. There's something in there, I'm sure.

sarge: "Sure, yabits, just make up stuff and post it. Sheesh. The fact is, many business leaders are seriously worried about an Obama victory."

I'm sure many business leaders ARE worried about an Obama victory -- they won't have the $700,000/year tax cut McCain would give each of them while asking your grandkids not to ask China why in the future why all the US company names would be in Chinese.

Sure, yabits, just make up stuff and post it. Sheesh.

The Economist magazine did a survey of several hundred economists. Even those who identified themselves as Republicans agreed that Obama's economic plans were better than McCain's. Quoting from the article: "Eighty per cent of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject." (The article continues to give reasons why they think so, based on the plans that the two candidates have put forward.)

source: http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=12342127

Therefore, your claim that I am "making things up" is just you making things up. I'll leave it to you to decide whether you have the class to retract or correct your statement.

As for wealth as a nation, the years of Republican policies have done nothing but undermine that position, as we see so clearly these days.

sarge: "That's debatable, but we do know that the United States today is the wealthiest nation on the face of the Earth."

Hahahaha... yeah... and that's why George W was BEGGING Fukuda (and it's fact) to give the US trillions in yen to help the future bust he knew was coming but didn't even bother trying to prevent otherwise (one of the reasons Fukuda suddenly quit -- he was sick of it).

The fact is, sarge, the US is rich in name only... and this has kept things in balance for years. Now the truth is coming to light and the economies that gambled on money they didn't have are seeing the chickens come home to roost (or however the saying goes). There's no money for the owner to collect -- the keep leant out everything that wasn't his; no on top of the massive amount of the US both Saudi Arabia and China own, there will be a whole lot more for sale in the coming months. Your kids? nope... their kids? nope... their kids? well... they might have a fraction of it paid for by then, and maybe your grandkids will have HALF the education you do, which is to say, not much, but for a fortune.

May as well start learning Mandarin, sarge, thanks to bush.... I'll even help you. From here onward, just type 不要 to every comment you see. That's usually what you post anyway.

Anyway, I notice the thread has shifted from McCain... has he been forgotten already? That was fast.

The fact is, many business leaders are seriously worried about an Obama victory.

Business leaders were worried about an FDR victory. Result: the greatest expansion of middle-class wealth creation in our nation's history.

Business leaders tend to have very narrow interests, so I don't pay much heed to them. Like Ken Lay, Dennis Kozlowski, and many others in the rogue's gallery, they change positions like chameleons to whatever is the buzzword or fashion of the day.

sarge will put all his faith in a gaffe made by Obama. He will defend to the end that Obama wants to redistribute wealth in a manner that is socialism. He has referred to Obama as socialistic many times.

But Obama made a gaffe and that is that. He has had his tax plan out there and it is a good one. I have since discovered that his tax increases are no where near what I used to calculate the other day. I proved that marginal increases are no where near the average rate increase.

Sailwind wants to use scare tactics and say our dollar will be worth only five cents. He also insists that we cannot collect additional taxes from the wealthy but offers no proof. The government is currently aggressively going after off shore tax schemes and don't be surprised if some of the loopholes are not closed. Corporations actually get a tax break for money they earn overseas in certain cases as long as they do not return it to the U.S. Is that the case with those of you living in Japan? Is the money you earn in Japan not taxed?

goodDonkey

Sailwind wants to use scare tactics and say our dollar will be worth only five cents. He also insists that we cannot collect additional taxes from the wealthy but offers no proof.

Taxpolicy excerpt......Non-Partisan and your proof.

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.

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

Link included

Sarge,

If taxes were prohibitive, lowering taxes might spur economic growth. However, taxes are not now prohibitive on the top income earners and Obama's proposed tax increase on them will not change that. The proof that taxes are not prohibitive--even with the higher taxes under Clinton--is that the gap between top earners and others has continued to widen.

That reducing taxes autuomatically stimulates economic growth is an assumption. What really stimulates economic growth is sound economic fundamentals. That reducing income tax for high earners (and capital gains tax for the wealthy) causes a trickle down benefit is another assumption. Things are not trickling down as a greater percentage of Americans fall under the poverty line and the gap widens.

As for disproving me, no, you haven't. The only thing you have proven is something that we both agree to--that Obama said it was good to spread the wealth. You haven't actually addressed any of the points that I made in regard to this one expression, uttered in the last 30 seconds of a 5 minute interchange with an obtuse plumber:

(1) Obama is not talking about spreading wealth. He is talking about taxing higher earners at higher rates and lower earners at lower rates. Wealth has nothing to do with this.

(2) There is no disincentive to higher earners and that higher earners are not disadvantaged by this. It will still be easier for an earner making $250,000 to clear an extra $10,000 after taxes than it will be for an earner making $25,000. Where's the disadvantage? Where's the disincentive?

(3) All income taxation redistributes income differentially. There are "winners" and "losers" in every revision of the tax code. Short of a flat percentage tax on all earnings from all sources with no deductions, there is no way to guarantee that income is not redistributed. If you make $100,000 AGI and pay, for simplicity, 20% tax, your tax share is $20,000. If I earn $50,000 and pay, again for simplicity, 10% tax, my share is $5,000. If we lower both are rates by 5%, your share is $15,000 and mine is $2,500. What ever we are paying for with our tax dollars you are picking up 6 times as much as I am, instead of the 4 as previously. Changing the tax burden changes the after tax income distribution. You can play with the numbers.

I know you're happy with McCain so I definitely think you should vote for him. And I think it's true that no one knows whether Obama's plan is a good one. However, economic nostrums won't get the job done either. If you're willing to wage generational war while lowering taxes and doubling the national debt, I certainly expect a more reasoned analysis of why we should not, in a bad economy, have a modest increase in debt accompanied by a more or less tax neutral change to the income tax, under which change higher income earners pay a slightly higher marginal rate.

Sailwind,

I live in a world of books and ideas, a domain vacated by the Republican Party some time ago:

"I'm hugely pro-Obama," Marc Andreessen [founder of Netscape] said in an interview in Wired magazine. His reason? "The other guy admits he doesn't know anything about economics," he said. "I run into my friends in the valley who say, 'How on earth can you support a Democrat?' I think Obama is much more centrist, especially on economic issues, than people think."

Andreessen credits Obama's connections with the University of Chicago, which, he points out, "is not known as a radical leftist school. It's like the heart of free-market ideology."

"He knows what he's talking about. He gets it. He's not some raving, liberal lunatic who's going to come along and try to Hugo Chavez everything."

Andreessen, it turns out, is a fan of Obama's chief economic adviser, a University of Chicago professor named Austin Goolsbee. Writing in The Guardian, Daniel Koffler says Obama's "language of personal choice and incentive" derives mostly from Goolsbee, who calls himself a "behavioral economist."

"Goolsbee agrees with the liberal consensus on the need to address concerns such as income inequality, disparate educational opportunities and, of course, disparate access to healthcare," Koffler writes, "but breaks sharply from liberal orthodoxy on both the causes of these social ills and the optimal strategy for ameliorating them.

"Instead of recommending traditional welfare-state liberalism, Goolsbee promotes programs to essentially democratize the market, protecting and where possible expanding freedom of choice, while simultaneously creating rational, self-interested incentives for individuals to participate in solving collective problems."

Still Goolsbee sees the fundamental problem at the heart of the American economy as the gulf between the superrich and the middle class.

Over the last six years, Goolsbee has said, "The typical worker had seen income grow hardly at all, while the cost of education, health care and energy have all gone up."

That is not merely a moral problem for Goolsbee and his follow-thinkers, but also a practical one, because an economy cannot flourish in a society thus constructed. And his solution, the one that will drive the economic plan of the next president of the United States, God willing, is to bridge that gulf.

http://www.metroactive.com/metro/10.15.08/cover-moneycandidate-0842.html

Betzee,

I live in the world of reality.

Chicago - My Obama number is one. I know him through our association at the University of Chicago Law School and through mutual friends in the neighborhood. We have had one or two serious substantive discussions, and when I sent him e-mails from time to time in the early days of his Senate term, he always answered in a sensible and thoughtful fashion. And yet, for assessing the course of his likely presidency, I don't know him at all.

It should come as no surprise that the traditionally liberal Hyde Park community is a veritable hotbed of support for Obama. So my manifest reluctance on his candidacy raises more than a single eyebrow: Loyalty for the home team counts.

The odd point is how his many learned and thoughtful supporters couch their endorsement. Almost without exception, they praise the man, not the program. Their claim is that Obama has proved himself to be a consummate politician who understands that the first principle of holding high office is to get reelected. His natural moderation in tone and demeanor, therefore, translate into getting advisers who know their substantive areas, and listening to them before making any rash moves. The dominant trope is that he will be a pragmatic president who will move in small increments toward the center, not in bold steps toward the left.

But is it all true? The short answer is that nobody knows. Virtually everyone who knows him recognizes that he plays his cards close to the vest, so that you can make your case to him without knowing whether it has registered. At this point, my fear is that the change in office will not lead to a change in his liberal voting record, as reinforced by a hyperactive Democratic platform. My great fear is that a landslide victory will give him solid majorities in both Houses of Congress, so that no stalling tactics by Republicans can slow down his legislative victory procession. At that point his innate pragmatism will line up with his strong left-of-center beliefs on issues that have thus far been muted during the campaign

Read the rest it is going to be the only piece your going to read to get a real idea of the guy we may very elect to be the next President.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/20/obama-chicago-election-oped-cx_re_1021epstein.html

Sailwind,

If you're confident with McCain's plan to balance the budget by cutting out earmarks that's your business. Others may recall his key economic advisor was Phil Gramm, who told us earlier this year "Americans never had it so good."

When McCain reiterated Gramm's view "the fundamentals of our economy are sound" days before it was clear Wall Street would need to be bailed out in a way never undertaken in America he then back peddled to explain, "I meant the American worker is the best in the world." And, if you disagreed, well that meant you were less patriotic than McCain and his supporters. After eight years, I've had it up to here with this totalitarian logic intended to stifle debate.

Now lemme think, well by posters who dismiss my opinions on the grounds I am an independent, self-sufficient woman who has enjoyed a series of personal relationships the intensity and duration of which have been negotiated in accordance with the shifting needs and circumstances of the two parties involved. 'Nuff said.

sailwind:

Well you have obviously already toned down your rhetoric. And you helped me to prove my point about Obama reducing tax shelters.

The report you posted a link to said:

Obama’s proposals to tax carried interest as ordinary income, limit international corporate tax shelters, improve information reporting, apply the “economic substance doctrine” to business transactions, and reduce the tax gap could all improve economic efficiency by reducing the incentive to engage in purely tax-motivated transactions. Corporations and high-income individuals would be motivated to select investments and arrange compensation to maximize productivity rather than simply to reduce tax liability. But some of the proposals may generate much less revenue than the Obama campaign claims, because the sophisticated tax avoidance techniques that Obama wants to reduce are difficult to control

That is a far cry from:

Even more amazing is how anyone actually really thinks the top 5 percent is actually going to pay more. You don't get to the top 5 percent tax bracket by being stupid. The top 5 percent isn't just going to sit meekly by and watch their tax burden rise. They have an army of tax lawyers and accountants and any potential income that would be taxed at a higher rate ain't gonna be there. The extra cash is going to be tucked-in tax shelters and trust hands so Uncle Sam can't get his mitts on it.

It is hardly a definitive statement when it says, "may generate much less revenue than the Obama campaign claims."

Furthermore the Wall Street Journal did some analysis on the 1993 tax cuts.

"Treasury Says 1993 Increase Is Helping Cut the Deficit"

"President Clinton sold the 1993 income-tax increase as a way to shrink the budget deficit at the expense of the rich."

"Republican adversaries predicted it wouldn’t generate much revenue because the rich would work less and take bigger deductions. Now there’s growing, if still tentative, evidence that Mr. Clinton may have been right after all.

The recent flood of revenue pouring into Treasury coffers—enough to push the federal budget to a record $93.94 billion surplus for the month of April—appears to have come mostly from the nation’s biggest earners, indicating that the controversial tax increase may indeed be taking from the rich. "The available data suggest the surge in tax collections has come from the taxpayers with high incomes, who were the only ones affected by the 1993 changes," says Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers." —WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 22, 1997, A2.

It's no big surprise that Obama wants to increase taxes. Liberals in Congress are already talking about huge increases in spending (just what you need after a $700 billion outlay). It is his philosophy to 'spread the wealth around' and the way that government does that is through it's power to tax. The United States has been changing in a fundamental way since the 1960's. America is becoming just like any run of the mill European country and his losing that one thing that made it great. The faith in the power within each individual is being replaced by faith in the power of government. That shift in faith requires more money from that shrinking majority of citizens that actually pay taxes. An emphasis on class by both political parties has resulted in a tax system in which 40% of Americans contribute nothing to their country in the form of taxes. Worse than that, due to the Earned Income Tax Credit and in Obama's coming plans to spread the wealth around, those paying no taxes actually get a tax rebate. Which is nothing less than a wealth transfer from those that have worked hard to be successful to those that have not. There is a clear division in America between those that believe in the individual and those that believe in government. America was founded in the John Locke philosophy of individualism coupled with a religeous charity to those less fortunate. Obama as president would fail in his promise to unify Americans because he is at war with those who are successful.

The faith in the power within each individual is being replaced by faith in the power of government.

I interpret this to mean that faith in the limited power within each individual is tempered by a faith in the greater power of individuals working together for a common purpose.

I interpret this to mean that faith in the limited power within each individual is tempered by a faith in the greater power of individuals working together for a common purpose.

With a few exceptions, government is not a requirement for individuals to join together for some common purpose. Churches and civic organizations have been doing this since before America gained it's independence. The difference is that each individual has the freedom to choose their associations and voluntarily give their time and money towards those things they find most important. There is no coercion involved when individuals decide what is most important to them. The accumulated decisions of all individuals reflect the true wishes of the country as a whole. That is the power of the individual.

It takes a mere 50.1% majority for government to decide what common purpose to pursue. Therefore, the government uses it's power of taxation to coerce the minority to support that which it does not wish to support. This method of working together is great for the winner, but divisive and infuriating for the minority.

It is well documented that those who oppose big government are much more likely to give to charitable organizations to address the needs of society. Conversely, those that believe in big government give less. A good example is Joe Biden. He is a millionaire but has given only $3,000 to charity over the last several years (you won't hear this in the main stream media). He wants someone else to bear the costs and does not assume this responsibility himself. Why can't Liberals just give more to charity instead of insisting that everyone adhere to their priorities?

Wolfpack,

Obama is not at war with those who are successful. And many of those who are successful are not at war with him. It kind of beats me how people can reconcile what they refer to as his support by rich elitists (who, never mind his $10- and $20-dollar supporters, are quite successful) with his being at war with the same.

I think some very grumpy ideologues, some remarkably miserly high-income folks and some easily led party faithful may be ready to go to war with Obama. But the charge that Obama is at war with his own class seems rather fanciful.

It's been a week and I still haven't received a reply from anyone in the Obama campaign to my question, "How can Obama give a tax cut to 95% of American workers when 40% of American workers don't pay taxes?"

Wolfpack writes: "With a few exceptions, government is not a requirement for individuals to join together for some common purpose."

Unless, that is, the purpose is to establish a government. Refer to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

"There is no coercion involved when individuals decide what is most important to them."

Well, those in the newly formed US nation who wanted to remain loyal to England were certainly coerced to leave it. I am saying this in response to your claim that America isn't what it used to be. In reality, there is greater freedom now for most people than ever before.

"Therefore, the government uses it's power of taxation to coerce the minority to support that which it does not wish to support."

Those things are set up in the Constitution. People elect representatives to Congress and they act on behalf of the people to pass laws that, most of the time, most people can support. You sound very much like a whiner who complains that it can't be your way all the time.

"It is well documented that those who oppose big government are much more likely to give to charitable organizations to address the needs of society."

You gave the example of Joe Biden. He's small potatoes. Three contrary examples of people who do not oppose big government and who give billions are Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros. There are many more examples.

"Why can't Liberals just give more to charity instead of insisting that everyone adhere to their priorities?"

Now, that really does sound like whining.

I like to read all this anti-Obama BS, because all I can do is smile. Because.. look out Obama is coming.:-)

Yours and mine,,, Next president of the United States of America, and it is about time we are united again as a people

Wolfpack

So you were not in favor of the bailout of the banks? Our financial markets are teetering now. In all likelihood they would have collapsed if our government had not purchased the huge banks they did. We already know what America has looked like in the past when the financial markets crash. If you don't agree with the bailout there is really no need for discussion because you lack understanding of the fundamental economics that are required to sustain our way of living. If you do agree with the bailout. Then you are in fact engaging in class warfare. Let the government give to the rich entities but not the poor. Most of the poor are working poor. It was the a Democratic administration who cut welfare as an entitlement. I did not want to go there but Socialism is a lot less about providing for those in need and a lot more about government ownership. Calling Obama a socialist is just the latest in a series of gimmicks. Bush has organized the most socialistic action our government has taken in many decades. Like I said before Obama made a gaffe by using the word "redistribution." Kudos to you and yours for capitalizing on it politically. However don't try to sell it on here where intelligent people will rip that B.S. to shreds. I agree with what Bush did by purchasing banks but it was still the most socialistic action taken in a very long time. Drastic times call for drastic measures. Those who think they can let the financial markets fall and rebuild them do not realize that the effect on the common working man during the depression was immense, deep and long in duration. What Obama said is what socialist do; they redistribute the wealth. Obama has no plans to do any thing but change the tax structure and that is what he was talking about. That is not socialism. He made a gaffe. So the NeoCons can continue to be dishonest but absolutely nothing that Obama has proposed in any way resembles socialism. Bush engaged in an act of Socialism.

Sarge,

Keep trying to get that answer.

Your question is picayune and not really to the point of what Obama is talking about. I think you would have been playing "gotch" economics here. I wonder if you have even sat down and run the numbers through the various tax calculators or if you have tried to do the work.

Have you considered that if the earned income tax credit increases, low-income, $0 taxpayers may have their tax reduced? I don't think you have yet commented on this, despite previous suggestions that this might be so. Or maybe you don't believe in negative numbers?

A person can be successful making under 250,000... 5,000 dollars a week.. Damn I feel sort of trash and one of the unsuccesful..

Who are you guys trying to kid?

THose that make 250.000 or more a year can live just as mighty with a 2% tax increase as they did before and those making under can live even better than they did in the past. Plus we hear we are the highest taxer of the world when it comes to large corporations, but on the other hand it is fact that there are so many loop hole s that these large corporations are lucky to pay any taxes what so ever in the end. You can break it down as much as you wish, but Obama’s goal is to side with the common people of the middle class that go to work everyday trying to provide their families a living, and trying to give them a break on taxes, while those with excess will not be hurt in the process, as many wish to try and overstate the negative impact which is NONE!

The only negative any of you have is he is a Democrat, or the racism factor that he is black. Die hard republicans will never change while those in the middle will vote for what is right instead of blindly casting a ballot.

Those against Obama's economic plan, Hey can I borrow some of your 250.000 or higher dollar incomes??? hahaha

I find anyone that is against this plan to be either filthy rich in debt to there ass living in a fantasy and have nothing but greed imbedded in their souls. When someone stands for give more to the rich and less to those less fortunate, I find that a moral issue. But hey we all have our down sides as a individual.

All you guys who want to live in reality should check Obama's voting record, which is about as left wing as you can get. Everybody is hoping that Obama is as good as his word. I'm betting his actions are better indicators.

What's wrong with trying a little left-wing?

We've seen what the right wing can do, these past 8 years.

Tony writes: I like to read all this anti-Obama BS, because all I can do is smile. Because.. look out Obama is coming.:-)

Yours and mine,,, Next president of the United States of America, and it is about time we are united again as a people

Yes, Obama will almost certainly be the next president of the U.S. but that doesn't make me smile. He will not unite Americans. Although if he becomes president he will be my president; I will not fall in line behind his redistributionist (read: socialist) policies. The country remains very much divided ideologically. Anyone who questions Obama's policies are almost always called a racist so don't expect the next four years to bring much unity to the country.

NetteMarie says:

What's wrong with trying a little left-wing? We've seen what the right wing can do, these past 8 years.

I get your point but the problem is that the so-called right-wing has been spending just like the left-wing. Can anyone actually make the case that the government doesn't spend enough? I don't think so. Instead of spending, why don't we try not spending. How about actually reducing the size of the government. Not just reduce the size of the increase, but a reduction in the actual amount the government spends.

TonyUS says:

I find anyone that is against this plan to be either filthy rich in debt to there ass living in a fantasy and have nothing but greed imbedded in their souls. When someone stands for give more to the rich and less to those less fortunate, I find that a moral issue. But hey we all have our down sides as a individual.

I am not filthy rich and I do not live in a fantasy world. I just don't believe it is the role of the government to take money from one person and give it to another. It is not greedy for a person to want to decide what to do with their own money. The greedy are those that are envious towards those that work hard for their success and who use the government to take someone elses money for their own benefit. Socialists have "envy" embedded in their souls.

There is no way that Obama can pay for a nationalized health care system and who knows how much for other programs to "redistribute wealth" without taxing those well down into the middle class. I think that it is right that America supports the elderly and the indigent. However, Obama wants every American to conform to his notion of a decent society. I think each able American should be allowed to choose how they want to live - without the government making those decisions for them.

goodDonkey says:

So you were not in favor of the bailout of the banks?

No. I don't think that $700 billion will have much effect on the economy. The economy has continued to decline despite the bailout legislation.

If you don't agree with the bailout there is really no need for discussion because you lack understanding of the fundamental economics that are required to sustain our way of living. If you do agree with the bailout. Then you are in fact engaging in class warfare.

There are plenty of economists that didn't support the bailout. I am sorry to hear that you are so closed minded that you are not willing to discuss an important topic - I guess you are an expert in economics.

It was the a Democratic administration who cut welfare as an entitlement.

Yes, but not until it was blocked by a Republican Congress. Liberals voted against it.

I did not want to go there but Socialism is a lot less about providing for those in need and a lot more about government ownership.

I've heard this point before and I can understand it to a degree. However, when socialism was originally thought out in it's most conprehensive form by Marx and Engels, economies were overwhelmingly agrarian and industrial. However, the American economy is largely oriented towards services. That is where Socialism comes in for Obama's agenda. One example, health care is at least 7% of the US economy. Obama is going after that chunk of GDP. By the way, the US government now owns 80% of the countries largest insurance company. With the vitriol that Liberals hurl towards the insurance industry each election year, there is no telling what Obama and a Liberal Congress have in mind for that entity.

Bush has organized the most socialistic action our government has taken in many decades.

You must be referring to the prescription drug plan. You are so right about that. It is Bush's worst decision as president and very damaging for the long-term economic health of the country. Along with the looming collapse of Social Security and the funding short-falls for Medicare and Medicaid, why in the world would the US want to get even deeper into the health care business? At least Bush tried hard to reform Social Security; but Democrat's have no interest in reforming it.

Obama has no plans to do any thing but change the tax structure and that is what he was talking about. That is not socialism. He made a gaffe.

He didn't make a gaff - he simply stated his philosophy. I know that it is extremely difficult to find out anything about Obama because he has very little time in the Senate and has guarded his past record very closely. He want discuss anything about his associations or thinking while in college. Anyone who asks about his churches black liberation theology (which is basically Marxist) is called a racist. Socialism is simply what the man believes in but he knows he has to dance around it to get elected.

Bush engaged in an act of Socialism.

I agree and I have opposed the bailout and the prescription drug plan.

Wolfpack,

I don't think it's true that anyone who questions Obama's policies is called a racist. What I think is true is that many people question the motives of those who so badly misrepresent Obama's policies or who imagine from his voting record and incidental associations that an Obama presidency will bring a slippery slope slide into socialism or other "un-American" behavior.

About 6 to 8 weeks ago I had a discussion with either you, WhiteHawk or USNinJapan (or some other decidedly military sounding person). The subject was whether Woodrow Wilson--the ubiquitous name on schools of my day throughout middle America--was a socialist. I was assured that he most definitely was because he nationalized the railroads. I said no, that this was designed as a temporary emergency measure and that governments tend to do what is necessary in an emergency. I was then assured that in emergencies, liberals nationalize and conservatives hire contractors.

But that was before the big collapse, before the request from a supposedly conservative administration to borrow money to nationalize components of the financial system. Now I recognize from your post above that you don't agree with this particular rescue plan. But, according to the economists that I have read there are only two prevailing views--let the market right itself or intervene with massive infusions of capital, with $700B probably not being enough. What government is going to choose the self-correction avenue? Only an extremist government, in my opinion.

Socialism is everywhere around us. Redistribution is everywhere around us. Examples: the progressive income tax, the tax differentiation between single earners and married earners filing jointly in single earner families, the deduction of mortgage interest, etc. Obama wants to change the degree of progressivity in the income tax. His proposal is neither draconian nor is it a disincentive. He does not want to redistribute income so much as he wants to redistribute the redistribution.

But about one thing you are right. You do know his philosophy. Everyone does. It's right there on his web site. Now you can postulate a secret agenda but if Bush--with the most secretive administration possibly ever, an increasingly conservative court and a Republican congress--was not powerful enough to transform the US into the neo-conservative's land of milk and honey, US checks and balances are still working. Why should they suddenly fall apart under Obama?

wolfpack redistributing money is all what the government does with taxes. From all its spending as the money is collected, it is distributed out and yes to many social programs. I see nothing wrong with rolling back tax breaks to the wealthy, as many have stated, especially for large corporations, the number of loop holes in the tax system makes the most highly taxed pay nothing at the end of the year, as we are talking corporations. Plus there has always been different tax brackets and probably always will unless we go to some flat tax system. So why do you make such a ramp about what we already have and have had from the beginning? And I see Obama as right when it comes to these tax breaks for corporations making historic profits as the majority suffers and at the same time using these profits and investing it overseas, such as in CHina putting those people to wok instead of people here in the US where they are making all their record breaking profits..

This is an argument that will never end because too many look at this issue from all different sides and come to different conclusion as final result. I am for helping companies and businesses here that create jobs here, not for those moving employment to another country making billions as they ship their items back to us that are sitting home unemployed because foreign hands are making the items we need instead of our own people going to work every morning producing the goods we use.

The rich getting richer and the poor getting poor. A larger divide between rich and poor. .Time to get some balance back within our society .