Socialism has been a big word around here lately mainly because McCain and Palin are equating it with Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and go back to Clinton's tax rates in the 90's. Hmmm... Well let's look at John McCain's own quotes on these same tax cuts before his nomination:

John McCain's Top 10 Class-Warfare Arguments Against Tax Cuts
by Human Events (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24421&page=1#c1)

1. “I don’t think the governor’s tax cut is too big—it’s just misplaced. Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans—and that’s not the kind of tax relief that Americans need. … Gov. Bush wants to spend the entire surplus on tax cuts. I don’t believe the wealthiest 10% of Americans should get 60% of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10% should get the breaks. …

“I’m not giving tax cuts for the rich.”

—Discussion with media, reported in “Bush, McCain Snip Over
Tax Cut Plans,” Los Angeles Times, and “GOP Rivals Bicker on Taxes,”
Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2000.

2. “I have never engaged in class warfare. I am very much in favor of tax cuts for middle-income and lower-income Americans. I’m deeply concerned about a kind of class warfare that’s going on right now. It’s unfortunate. There’s a growing gap between the haves and have-nots in America, and that gap is growing, and it’s unfortunately divided up along ethnic lines.

“I feel very strongly that we ought to have middle-income and lower-income tax cuts, and we’ll be getting into it, I’m sure, later on in this program. Mine are basically comparable to Gov. Bush’s, in some cases far better. But I’m not sure we need to give two-thirds of that tax cut, of that money, to the wealthiest 10% of America.”

—Michigan Republican Debate, Jan. 11, 2000.

3. “I always thought that class warfare was to take away from the rich. I always believed that that was what class warfare was all about. As I said, there are tax breaks and money for the richest in America and the very rich, but I think that it’s clear that there’s a growing gap between rich and poor in America, the haves and the have-nots. And many studies have indicated that, and I think that the people who need it most and need the relief most are working middle-income Americans and that’s what I want to give to them. And at the same time, the greatest benefit that I can give them is to make sure that their Social Security benefits are there. And I also don’t think it’s fair for us to lay a $ 5.6 trillion debt down on future generations of Americans.”
—NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Jan. 16, 2000.

4. “We give the millionaire a $2,000 refund. Gov. Bush gives him $50,000.”

—Quoted in “John McCain: How Straight a Shooter?” by Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, Jan. 27, 2000.

5. “There’s one big difference between me and the others—I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy. I’ll use the bulk of the surplus to secure Social Security far into the future to keep our promise to the greatest generation.”

—McCain campaign commercial, January 2000.

6. “I don’t think Bill Gates needs a tax cut. I think you and your parents do.”

—Michigan State University rally, Feb. 20, 2000.

7. “Mr. President, the principle that guides my judgment of a tax reconciliation bill is tax relief for those who need it the most—lower- and middle-income working families. I am in favor of a tax cut, but a responsible one that provides significant tax relief for lower- and middle-income families. And I commend Sen. Grassley for moving in that direction. But I am concerned that debt will overwhelm many American households. That is why tax relief should be targeted to middle-income Americans. The more fortunate among us have less concern about debt. It is the parents struggling to make ends meet who are most in need of tax relief.

“I had expressed hope that when the reconciliation bill was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee, the tax cuts outlined would provide more tax relief to working, middle-income Americans. However, I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.”

—Senate floor statement during debate over President Bush’s tax relief package, May 21, 2001.

8. “During the debate on the Senate version of the tax reconciliation bill, I had urged my colleagues that substantial tax relief to middle-income Americans should be our top priority. While I regret that my amendment to cut the top rate by one percent to 38.6% so millions more middle-class Americans would fall into the 15% tax bracket failed on a tie vote, Sen. Grassley did move in that direction in the Senate bill by insisting that the top rate should be cut to only 36%. As a result, I reluctantly voted for the bill but pledged to vote against the conference report should further reductions in the top tax rate be made at the expense of the majority of Americans who are in much greater need of tax relief.

“Unfortunately, the conference report did just that by jettisoning the commendable work both Senators Grassley and Baucus did in crafting a Senate reconciliation bill that provided more tax relief to middle-income Americans. This conference report lowers the top rate cut to 35%, at the cost of delaying, for several years, much needed tax relief for married couples unfairly penalized by our tax code. …

“We had an opportunity to provide much more tax relief to millions of hard-working Americans. . . . I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.”

—Senate floor statement before voting against President Bush’s tax cut, May 26, 2001.

9. “I am concerned that repeal of the estate tax would provide massive benefits solely to the wealthiest and highest-income taxpayers in the country. A Treasury Department study found that almost no estate tax has been paid by lower- and middle-income taxpayers. But taxes have been paid on the estates of people who were in the highest 20% of the income distribution at the time of their death. It found that 91% of all estate taxes are paid by the estates of people whose annual income exceeded $190,000 around the time of their death. …

“We have no idea what our financial or economic situation will be ten years from now. … We may want to have the flexibility to provide significant tax relief for lower- and middle-income taxpayers. Other unforeseen issues may arise. The point is that we must think beyond the horizon. Making the repeal of the estate tax permanent fails to take these new circumstances into account.

“We will need resources to deal with … responsible tax reform that benefit lower- and middle-income taxpayers.”

—Senate floor statement opposing HR 8, a bill to permanently eliminate the death tax, June 11, 2002.

10. MCCAIN: “Shouldn’t we give relief to average citizens who also are double taxed every single day?”

HOST KATIE COURIC: “But, Sen. McCain, if you listen to Commerce Secretary Don Evans, and he just appeared on this program, working Americans, the middle-class Americans, under the Bush proposals will get a major break. A family of four making $39,000 a year, according to Mr. Evans, will get a $1,100 tax cut for several years, allowing them to plan their individual budgets. That sounds like something that won’t just simply benefit the wealthy.”

MCCAIN: “Well, I think it will. But when you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that—as the previous tax cuts—that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans. … A lot of Americans now are paying a very large a—low and middle-income Americans are paying a significantly larger amount of their income in taxes. I’d like to see them get the bulk of the relief.”

—NBC’s “Today,” Jan. 7, 2003.

Now all these quotes are from the man who says "Obama will say anything to get elected."

How funny is that... It's one thing to argue against Obama's philosophy but quite another to vote for McCain, who is attacking his opponent for saying things that have fallen out of his own lips. Hypocrisy, anyone?

Or this:

d8EyGpOU3qM

I can't believe there's even people that support McCain. It's like voters are going into this election without listening to the words coming out of his mouth.

Obama is not saying he will bring the taxes back to Clinton levels . He is saying he will give a tax cut or a credit for people who do not pay taxes at the expense of the top 2% (they will get plundered ) . The only simularity to Clinton is that it is a similar lie that Clinton told to get elected.

As far as McCain goes;he has always identified himself as a "moderate " Republican which means he has some socialist tendencies . You know that by some of the legislation he has sponsored as he "reached across the aisle" in bipartisanship. If he loses it will teach him a valuable lesson about the people he has tried to suck up to over the years like Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold.

Obama is not saying he will bring the taxes back to Clinton levels . He is saying he will give a tax cut or a credit for people who do not pay taxes at the expense of the top 2% (they will get plundered )

This is not true. It's just not true. You are saying it's true because you've bought McCain's SLANDER. You know what McCain has done? He's shown the American people that he isn't an honorable person. He will speak any lie to achieve his goal. He will pull any stunt, even though it puts American's safety at risk to try to win this election. Is that the type of person you want leading our country? What McCain is doing is unethical and he is nothing but a hypocrite. Obama has stated that he wants to roll back Bush's tax cuts that went into effect for the very wealthy that McCain himself thought were too pricey for our country at the time. You can read the article here.... (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/us/politics/14talk.html)

These two guys feel the same way... You know what the difference is? Obama is up front with the people and McCain is misrepresenting himself and is too old to realize that regular ol' people like you and me have access to everything he's ever said on the internet. He thinks he can just change his position, slander his opponent and no one will ever be the wiser. So when McCain says verbatim what Obama has said and more, he is considered a moderate republican with "socialist tendencies" but yet you think Obama is a Marxist?
It's unbelievable.

You know what McCain has done? He's shown the American people that he isn't an honorable person.


Pretty much!

I got more than one phone call from Seniors without access to everything ...on the internet who Obama is trying to scare in Florida .

He has been running ads that are fantastic distortions of McCain's positions about Medicare. He is saying McCain plans to cut $800 billion from Medicare through "cuts in benefits, eligibility or both."

His charge has been refuted by a number of independent sources as a complete fabrication and distortion of McCain's position . So let's not talk about speaking any lie to achieve his goal.
Even the Washinton Compost says Obama is lying .
Obama Scares Seniors - Fact Checker (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/obama_scares_seniors.html)

The fact is that McCain has changed his mind about tax cuts because he did see that they were effective.

Obama's plan is a lie. What he calls tax credits are in fact new government giveaways. He parses it by calling those tax credits to people who don't pay taxes "refundable." He would give significant tax credits even though Congressional Budget Office data shows the bottom 40% of income earners already pays no income taxes.So how can he cut taxes for 95% when only 60% pay taxes ?

The top individual income tax rate would be increased by 13%, to 39.6%; the next-highest rate would be raised to 36%. The top rates on capital gains and dividends would rise by a third, to 20%
The Social Security payroll tax would be raised between 16% to 32% for families making over $250,000 a year. This means that the real returns these people get from their lifetime payments into the retirement program will be driven below 0%. Social Security fundamentally changes from an insurance contract to just another welfare plan.

He uses Marxist like platitudes to justify his unfair taxation. He says he wants to create "a sense of balance fairness in our tax code"....or... "spreading around opportunity""
He might just as well say "From each according to their ability to each according to their means".
The only fair tax is a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage with no exemptions. You'ld still be getting more money from the rich ;and they would not be able to manipulate the code to hide the money.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury..."
[Alex Fraser Tytler ]

Got to continue this later...

This is not true. It's just not true. You are saying it's true because you've bought McCain's SLANDER. You know what McCain has done? He's shown the American people that he isn't an honorable person. He will speak any lie to achieve his goal. He will pull any stunt, even though it puts American's safety at risk to try to win this election. Is that the type of person you want leading our country? What McCain is doing is unethical and he is nothing but a hypocrite. Obama has stated that he wants to roll back Bush's tax cuts that went into effect for the very wealthy that McCain himself thought were too pricey for our country at the time. You can read the article here.... (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/us/politics/14talk.html)

These two guys feel the same way... You know what the difference is? Obama is up front with the people and McCain is misrepresenting himself and is too old to realize that regular ol' people like you and me have access to everything he's ever said on the internet. He thinks he can just change his position, slander his opponent and no one will ever be the wiser. So when McCain says verbatim what Obama has said and more, he is considered a moderate republican with "socialist tendencies" but yet you think Obama is a Marxist?
It's unbelievable.

The Bush tax cuts were NOT just for the wealthy. Any family with dependent children got a sizable tax cut. If the Bush tax cuts are discontinued, these families will LOSE.

The fact is that McCain has changed his mind about tax cuts because he did see that they were effective.


Oh and when prey tell, did this revelation occur? When he looked around and saw how GREAT the economy was doing? LOL. No... it happened when he was stumping and decided he had to say anything that worked to get elected.


He uses Marxist like platitudes to justify his unfair taxation. He says he wants to create "a sense of balance fairness in our tax code"....or ..."spreading around opportunity""

You know you can twist around what Obama is saying as much as you want. He wants to cushion the middle class or around 95 % of the people in the country during an economic downturn. Our nation is in the hole, and we can talk about politicians until we're blue in the face, but I think this article from the Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2008/1021_financial_regulation_rivlin.aspx) (oh, but wait... are they liberal too? Good Grief) says it best:

"Americans have been living beyond our means, individually and collectively, for a long time. We have been spending too much, saving too little, and borrowing without concern for the future from whomever would support our over-consumption habit—the mortgage company, the new credit card, or the Chinese government. We indulged ourselves in the collective delusion that housing prices would continue to rise. The collective delusion affected the judgment of buyers and sellers, lenders and borrowers, builders and developers. For a while the collective delusion proved a self-fulfilling prophecy—house prices kept rising and all the building and the borrowing looked justifiable and profitable. Then, like all bubbles, it collapsed as housing prices leveled off and started down."

It's time for all of us to take some personal responsibility, here.

You mentioned capital gains tax which is currently at 15% (http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/15/news/economy/capital_gains/index.htm?postversion=2008101516). For the wealthiest people in our nation, 60% of their income comes from capital gains, whereas most of the middle class have no income from capital gains. Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax to 20% and McCain wants to lower it to 7.5%.

From what I've been reading, lowering the CGT doesn't have much of an effect on real investment growth it just costs the government a lot of money without helping the economy. (http://www.centrists.org/pages/2004/07/31_lemieux_econ.html) I also came across an article in Forbes that stated that investment growth is dependent on... the people. Americans just aren't big savers it turns out and it's hurting our country. The more money we put into savings the more of a pool of money our nation has to draw for loans on new business and equipment. Republicans like to say "Go out and shop!" That mentality is perpetuating our economic woes because Americans also need to save. To make matters worst... we're just buying junk... that falls apart and ends up in a landfill. We need a value shift in America and McCain is not the one to offer leadership in this shift.

Republicans are all about excess... whether it's "Drill Baby Drill" or running up the deficit (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) for an extremely unpopular war that doesn't seem to be ending after 7 years and billions of borrowed dollars.

During the second debate a caller asked the question "What sacrifice can Americans make?" McCain completely missed the point of her question when he answered and said "We can get rid of those earmarks and the pork spending!" He was out of touch with what she really meant. Obama, on the other hand DID know what she was talking about. And his answer is that Americans need to pitch in to... conserve and an extension of that philosophy is to save.

Vote Obama 08.

The Bush tax cuts were NOT just for the wealthy. Any family with dependent children got a sizable tax cut. If the Bush tax cuts are discontinued, these families will LOSE.

No they won't. That is not true. Do you just not believe the words coming out of the man's mouth? Obama isn't planning to increase any taxes for families as long as they aren't making over $250k per year. Read that sentence over and over. Because the man has been saying it until he is hoarse. Is it just impossible for you to believe?

Cap.gains and dividends taxes is double taxation . Even worse ,it is a tax penalty imposed on productivity, investment, and capital accumulation.
80 percent of those claiming capital gains or dividends report earnings of less than $100,000 and 47 percent have incomes less than $50,000. Why do you want to penalize these middle class workers and business people ?

I can't wait to see what you Obama-supporters have to say when your social security is pissed away and you start paying out the a** in taxes so people who want to sit on their's get a free ride. It's disgusting, the worst kind of gov't. Obama said he wants to spread the wealth and provide the same opportunity to everyone. Giving people free money doesn't provide opportunity, it's FREE. If you give someone something, it defeats the purpose of working for it. As if American's aren't lazy enough, add Barack Obama into the equation and watch this country run straight into the ground.

Cap.gains and dividends taxes is double taxation . Even worse ,it is a tax penalty imposed on productivity, investment, and capital accumulation.
80 percent of those claiming capital gains or dividends report earnings of less than $100,000 and 47 percent have incomes less than $50,000. Why do you want to penalize these middle class workers and business people ?


Everything I have read states the contrary. Links to back up your claims?

Only 17 percent of households in the bottom 60 percent of the income spectrum own stock in taxable accounts. In contrast, 73 percent of the households in the top 10 percent of the income spectrum own stock in taxable accounts.

**** Among those at the very top of the income spectrum — the top one percent — 84 percent own stock in taxable accounts.

Edited to add: The proportion of those with incomes under $100,000 who receive any capital gains or dividend income is quite small. According to the Tax Policy Center, in 2005, only 12.5 percent of the households earning less than $100,000 received dividend income, and only 6.6 percent received any capital gains income.

No they won't. That is not true. Do you just not believe the words coming out of the man's mouth? Obama isn't planning to increase any taxes for families as long as they aren't making over $250k per year. Read that sentence over and over. Because the man has been saying it until he is hoarse. Is it just impossible for you to believe?

Why should anyone one of us have to provide anymore of a handout with our taxes than we already do? Who are you (or Obama) to say someone doesn't need the 40% of taxes they are getting ready to GIVE away. He said 95% won't see a tax increase. That's BS, way more than 5% of people in the US make more than $250000/year. I believe people should keep what they earn, they worked hard for it. People can sit all day long and dream of making a lot of money, but if they want it bad enough, they will get up off their butt and find a way to earn it, not sit there with their hand out.

So you think that if a change of administration occurs people who would be working will stop and expect free money to be given to them?

I can't wait to see what you Obama-supporters have to say when your social security is pissed away and you start paying out the a** in taxes so people who want to sit on their's get a free ride. It's disgusting, the worst kind of gov't. Obama said he wants to spread the wealth and provide the same opportunity to everyone. Giving people free money doesn't provide opportunity, it's FREE. If you give someone something, it defeats the purpose of working for it. As if American's aren't lazy enough, add Barack Obama into the equation and watch this country run straight into the ground.

Are you actually reading any of my posts? It sounds more like you are talking based on some preconceived notion and bias.

People can sit all day long and dream of making a lot of money, but if they want it bad enough, they will get up off their butt and find a way to earn it, not sit there with their hand out.

The whole point of rolling back Bush's tax cuts is to pay for things... like the two wars we are fighting and new infrastructure and energy development and research. I have heard so many conservatives whine and complain about the welfare mother with five kids and I suppose that's who you're referring to when you talk about "hand-out" and "Free ride". Good grief. Our nation needs money and we CAN'T AFFORD BUSH'S TAX CUTS. We need to stop borrowing the money from China. Did you know that the economic stimulus check you received was partly funded by borrowed money from China? Then people went to wal-mart and bought more junk and it went right back to China. It is causing our country to sink.

The republicans have had 8 years and we have a mess... it's time to let the other side give it a go.

Yea, let them give it a go. Aren't the Obama Youth cute? Welcome to the Forth Reich.

YouTube - Cult Of Obama - Missouri Youths' Militaristic Obama Chant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxJ7t3U3TDg)

Better than these messed-up people: YouTube - A Nation down the Drain ( Jesus Camp ) part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bB2rt3IKJc)

I guess Mag likes her black youth running the streets instead of thinking they can be something.

Yea, I like the independent gangsta thing much better. Those Federal Gangstas really scare me. Besides, as an independent, the profit margine is higher and the tax rate much lower.

I'm all for "cutting the tax cuts" but to only cut it for those deemed to make "too much money" to hand it out to those who (and when I say this I don't speak of the handful of people that need it and are receiving it) don't want to work hard or take out a student loan or two to get a college degree, I think cutting back the tax cuts for energy research, to help underprivileged kids pay for college (i.e. more financial aid resources to aspiring students) to fund the war, and possibly increase troop pay, those guys don't make enough. That's great. The problem I have lies IN our welfare system. So many people need it and can't get or our too proud to ask and 75% of the people that get it, don't need it. I think the gov't needs to get off it's butt and start checking up on these people receiving gov't aid (i.e. drug tests, and home inspections) I personally know a person who is 22 years old, living with her crack addict boyfriend, sponging off medicaid, because she says she is too obese to work. She lives in gov't housing and her boyfriend isn't supposed to be there, with her son, and they pay 53 bucks a month for a 2 story, 3 bedroom apt and she got WIC, and gets 380 bucks a month in food stamps. Stuff like that makes me SICK. I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but I see Obama's tax plan as giving these kinds of people a free ride. I haven't heard ONE of the candidates say anything about tightening the checkups on people ALREADY getting this.

As if American's aren't lazy enough, add Barack Obama into the equation and watch this country run straight into the ground.

As if this country isn't run into the ground already. Lol.

"As if American's aren't lazy enough."

That's about a load of crap coming from the main stream media. Do you believe everything they tell you or are you from the segment of society that are just plain worthless to start with?

I personally know a person who is 22 years old, living with her crack addict bf, sponging off medicaid, because she says she is too obese to work. She lives in gov't housing and her bf isn't supposed to be there, with her son, and they pay 53 bucks a month for a 2 story, 3 bedroom apt and she got WIC, and gets 380 bucks a month in food stamps. Stuff like that makes me SICK. I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but I see Obama's tax plan as giving these kinds of people a free ride. I haven't heard ONE of the candidates say anything about tightening the checkups on people ALREADY getting this.

These tax cuts we're talking about are primarily capital gains and don't really have anything to do with the welfare program and please don't forget that this woman is still getting her check and Bush has been our president for 8 long dismal years. Obama, on the other hand, has stated that he is not for creating new social welfare programs and is for going through programs line by line to get rid of the programs that don't work while keeping the ones that do. McCain has said nothing about welfare inparticular, but rather says he just wants to get rid of earmarks and pork spending for pet projects. The problem with his solution is that a lot of the earmarks, including the funding he singled out that was given to research grizzly DNA is going to hurt all of us. He is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Grizzlies would have gone extinct if this study hadn't been conducted. I don't think any of us want that, do you?

As for entitlements, I agree that the woman you described is sponging and I think it's wrong and I completely agree that they should better research these people. But the fact remains that this woman and people like her are a drop in the bucket compared to the 85 billion in taxpayer dollars given to executives from AIG who then went to a lavish spa where they spent $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for meals and $23,000 for the spa treatments on a weeklong retreat. That personally infuriates me a lot more than the welfare person because the amount is exponentially greater and many of these same executives have grown exponentially wealthier under Bush's tax plan while middle class income for 2007 is actually LOWER than it was in 2000. The biggest difference is that you personally see one person cheating, but the other people... well they're tucked away in a penthouse. Ya know? Out of sight out of mind.

I think the majority of people believe welfare needs to be reformed and I think Obama actually has a better chance of doing this than McCain who, if elected, will just inspire more apathy for our political system. Not to mention that Obama is an inspiration to young people and at-risk students. People need hope right now and throwing money at the problem or completely taking it away isn't the answer. If you get a chance... please watch this video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9IldaegAB0) I've mentioned it here before. There is hope and change here if only we dare to embrace it.

Obama

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf


1] A $1,000 “Making Work Pay” Tax Credit... This CREDIT will benefit over 15 million self employed workers and for 10
Million low-income Americans, will completely eliminate their federal income taxes


- 43 million people don't pay any federal income tax. The bottom 50% wage earners pay < 10% of all tax revenue. - In other words Obama wants to take from those who are most productive and continue to give those who don't already pay federal income tax.

IS THIS NOT INCOME REDISTRIBUTION?


2] A Refundable $4,000 American Opportunity Tax Credit

- again, who is going to be paying for this credit? Why does he not ask the universities with the biggest endowments to cut their tuition? Instead taxpayors are asked to foot the bill for exorbitant college tuitions.

3] A Universal 10% Mortgage Interest Tax Credit.

Who does this really benefit? Those with the most expensive house - or principal left on their mortgage. Certainly 10 % credit on mortgage interest on a million dollar is going to be more than on a hundred thousand dollar.

4] Eliminating Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000.
- I agree with this at the expense of the above 3 points.

5] Expanding Retirement Savings Incentives.. . Savers Credit to match 50 percent of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under
$75,000. He will also make the Savers Credit fully refundable.
Who will manage this pension? Is this not like a 401? Why exlcude those over 75K / yr? I'm sure in places like LA, NY, SF 75 k/ yr is not much.

6] Health Care Tax Credits
Very non- specific? Is this towards private health insurance or credit for every health expenditure from the first dollar? WHo is going to pay for this? Is this in case VA type gov universal healthcare does not pass?



7] Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit: .
8] Increase Tax Benefits for Child Care
These I can agree with.

So half I agree with.



-----------------------------------------------


As to McCain - as SNL spoofed, he is not afraid to go against the conservative base.

----------------------------------------------

But to increasing taxes on the rich, the basic question is who worked for that money? The rich did [ or at least those that got rich and started the trust fund ;) ].

Taxes are confiscatory - the government did not earn that money. That is what the Tea Party was about.

------------------------------------------

What about in sports - why not point redistribution. If your team scores too much the referees will take away your points and give it to your opponent's team, thereby making things more "fair" - and exciting. :p:eek::rolleyes:

You can bring a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

Who am I talking about??

1. Democrats
2. Republicans
3. Media
4. You

Hints:
Everyone thinks he or she is right.
You can only Follow the past to predict the future.

The person who only educates partially is the one who scares me!!

The problem is always the end user. (you have a choice)

We as a nation have become a nation of whiners.

All I hear is complaints about how it effects you.

If you want to fix the system VOTE them all (all incumbents) out of office.

This is the only way to send a message.

That's my answer.
What is yours.

Quit whining and come up with solutions.

Use common sense.

Obama

1] A $1,000 “Making Work Pay” Tax Credit.... This CREDIT will benefit over 15 million self employed workers and for 10


I am self employed and run a small business, so this sounds great to me... just as those capital gains tax cuts sounded great to all the people who make money on stocks. Should they continue to get tax cuts while I'm taxed to death? What's your criteria for choosing? Are you implying that they are more deserving or perhaps the... "Real Americans?"

You can thank Clinton and Greenpan for the banking mess. CBS reports on 60 minutes.

Finally
They even called it what it is (Craps).


Merris you did not receive a check from the bailout??

Just kidding
I'm in the same boat with you and the boat is sinking.
It is becoming harder and harder for small businesses to survive.

I am self employed and run a small business, so this sounds great to me... just as those capital gains tax cuts sounded great to all the people who make money on stocks. Should they continue to get tax cuts while I'm taxed to death? What's your criteria for choosing? Are you implying that they are more deserving or perhaps the... "Real Americans?"



Should someone get taxed more so the money that they paid in taxes be given to someone, in the form of credits, who makes less?

This is income redistribution.

Should points from the team in the lead be subtracted from them and then added to the team scoring less? Who earned those points?

Should we go on to grade redistribution? Should a student studying hard to make 95% [A] have 15 points taken away to be a B student with an 80%,and those 15 points be given to a D student so that they go from 60% to 75%?

Why should a team/ a student / a worker, work hard to make more points/ a better grade/ more money, when by govrnment fiat it will be taken away.

Merris look at the tax brackets - the wealthy already pay more as a percent of their income.

2007 Federal Tax Rate Schedules (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html)

Merris take a lool at the IRS tax data. The bottom 50% pay < 5% of all income tax, the top 50% pay >96% of all income taxes, as it is now.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff135data--all%20charts.swf


My criteria, is one should earn what they worked for and not have the government confiscate it [ higher marginal tax rates ] and give it [ in the form of credits ] to someone who happens not to make as much money.


Would you push for a couple million more be taken from OPrah, or Bill Gates, or Paul Allen, and be given to you because you make less money?

This is income redistribution. All taxes are income redistribution. Do you make an issue of it every election for every candidate?

Not true . Just taxes are used to fund specific government constitutionally mandated services.

Merris
The Bush tax cuts recind and become the old Clinton PLAN??

Merris if I give you $100 perday for lunch.
How much would you spend??

Be honest

Please repond with amount.

If anyone else wants to answer

Please do so

Merris
The Bush tax cuts recind and become the old Clinton PLAN????

Merris if I give you $100 perday for lunch.
How much would you spend???

Be honest

Please repond with amount.

If anyone else wants to answer

Please do so
$15 for lunch and bank the rest for a rainy day.

Would you push for a couple million more be taken from OPrah, or Bill Gates, or Paul Allen, and be given to you because you make less money?


LOL... Oprah publicly endorsed Obama an in fact, the wealthiest man in the WORLD and the most successful investor in the world, Warren Buffet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett) has publicly endorsed OBAMA and thinks his tax plan is better. So that leaves the question: Why aren't you? The answer is that there isn't any logical reason why... you are just grasping at straws and rejecting something that is common sense because you have some irrational loyalty to a party that is FAILING YOU and EVERYBODY ELSE ON THIS BOARD. That's why.

Edited to add:

Some of Obama's other endorsements:

Marc Andreesen (co-founder of Netscape)
William Louis-Dreyfus (billionaire investor)
George Soros (billionaire investor)
John Thompson (CEO of Symantec)
Eric Schmidt (Chariman/CEO of GOOGLE)
Indra Nooyi (CEO of Pepsi)

Why doesn't Buffett just donate more if his conscience bothers him ? It's easy ;just write the damn check to the IRS!! I could drive my average tax rate down too if I reduced my salary to minimal levels and paid myself with distributions instead of a paycheck.
I'm sure he pays a team of experts tons of money to reduce his tax bill each year.


But the truth is ,and I admire him for this ;his low tax rate is in no small part due to his sheltering his money in charitable foundations like the Gates Foundation .

I'm sure he pays a team of experts tons of money to reduce his tax bill each year.

But the truth is ,and I admire him for this ;his low tax rate is in no small part due to his sheltering his money in charitable foundations like the Gates Foundation .

As do most of the wealthiest 1% Tom. They aren't worried... why are you? I'm glad you can commend him on donating to a charitable organization even if you make the dubious claim that it's for a tax shelter. I think he's really just a philanthropic individual and there is a certain truth that the more generous a person is, the wealthier he/she becomes. But you've hit on a great point. If you give to whatever private organization you choose you offset your taxes. You do have a choice here. You can pay taxes that go to public works that benefit our nation as a whole (sustainability, alternative energy, education, environmental protection, healthcare, defense, etc... ) or you can make private donations to whatever organization you choose and take the deduction from your taxes. So what's the problem? Is it perhaps that some people just don't want to give?

$15 for lunch and bank the rest for a rainy day.

Thanks for the answer NeedKarma

I cannot answer the question until Merris gives us his answer.

Still waiting Merris

NeedKarma
Make sure that bank is FDIC insured though.

Part 2 of question what if it was $25.00 How much would you spend on lunch

Merris there is no virtue in charity that is imposed .

I am more than willing to give Buffett his due... in fact much more credit than most who trash "robber barons". Half the parkland I hike in on the East Coast has been property donated to the public by Rockefeller . Every public museum , or theater that I go to has plaques with the names of rich patrons who donated small fortunes to build and maintain them. Charitable foundations do great works .

But the fact is that although I commend philanthropy , much of that is done to protect estates.

Buffet is in the unique position to have a choice;a choice I do not begrudge him. If he wants to pay more income tax he can cut a check outright;or structure his income differently so he doesn't avoid the income tax.To that extend he is lying and a hypocrite.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Merris there is no virtue in charity that is imposed .



I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I don't see healthcare, defense, money to increase soldier's pay, alternative energy development or tax breaks for millions of working class families as charity. I simply consider it an investment in the health and economic foundation of our nation as a whole. I am thinking about the nation and you are thinking about the individual. Middle class incomes are lower now than they were in 2000 before Bush took office. When the middle class isn't doing well we don't pay for services and goods and the nation as a whole suffers.

Now with that said, every presidential candidate in the past has come up with a tax plan in order to assure fairness and to boost the health of the economy as a whole and Obama's plan is no different and you can hardly fault him for putting the country first. McCain is business as usual, or business as Bush. He has offered us nothing in terms of solutions and has instead made rash decisions to benefit only himself (VP pick) that put our nation's security at risk. That alone is unforgivable.

Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga said Sunday no date has been set for selling up to 45 percent more of the team to Stephen Ross, but the presidential election is among the issues weighing on his decision.

That's because a Barack Obama administration is expected to mean higher capital-gains taxes.

"He wants to double the capital gains tax, or almost double it," Huizenga said. "I'd rather give it to charity than to him."

Huizenga aim: Sell at '07 capital-gains tax level -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/football/pro/dolphins/sfl-flspdolwayne27sboct27,0,1382404.story)




Many economists would equate what Obama has in mind with socialism. Among them is the late F.A. Hayek, a one-time socialist, who wrote a book on the dangers of socialism titled "The Road to Serfdom." When it debuted in the final days of WWII, socialism unambiguously meant the state control of the means of production and central economic planning.
But decades later, in a new preface, the Nobel Prize winner wrote that "socialism has come to mean chiefly the extensive redistribution of incomes through taxation and the institutions of the welfare state." Yes, that's Obama's economic plan.
He concluded that even this softer socialism means reduced economic liberties, opportunities and living standards for all.
According to Marxist theory, socialism is the stage between capitalism and communism where private wealth is distributed for the benefit of all. It's a romantic notion because hardly anyone is willing to share their wealth with strangers.
So to get from theory to practice, force must be used. Wealth must be taken by the state — and not by a faceless bureaucratic machine, but rather by flawed humans with their own selfish ambitions and ulterior motives. They decide who gets what, taking cuts for themselves and their cronies in the process.
Think ex-Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines and ACORN.
Socialism is centralized power. That's why socialist movements, which often begin as cults of personality, usually end in fascism. Witness Stalinism, Maoism, Castroism — and, yes, Nazism, which, as Hayek noted, stands for "National Socialism."
Again, almost every major society that started with socialism has ended badly. Socialism has been refuted repeatedly, yet that hasn't stopped neo-Marxists — hiding now behind the title "community organizer" — from dreaming their dreams of collective sacrifice for collective good.
They see capitalism with its profit motive as vulgar and immoral because it's at odds with altruism — the idea that the general welfare of society is the proper goal of individuals.


http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=309998752298369

Good luck with the talking point, I'm sure it will resurrect the McCain campaign. Keep hammering the "communist" angle - we're amused.

Good luck with the talking point, I'm sure it will resurrect the McCain campaign. Keep hammering the "communist" angle - we're amused.


I agree. But rather than amused, I'm just bored. McCain is a hypocrite because he has spoken of tax fairness himself and in fact so have other republicans (http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:KlpwES_R4OoJ:www.leg.state.or.us/press_releases/hro_072208.pdf+oregon+tax+fairness&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a). This is only an empty campaign gimmick and nothing more.



(Edited to remove some info for later thread)

LOL... Oprah publicly endorsed Obama an in fact, the wealthiest man in the WORLD and the most successful investor in the world, Warren Buffet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett) has publicly endorsed OBAMA and thinks his tax plan is better. So that leaves the question: Why aren't you? The answer is that there isn't any logical reason why... you are just grasping at straws and rejecting something that is common sense because you have some irrational loyalty to a party that is FAILING YOU and EVERYBODY ELSE ON THIS BOARD. That's why.

Edited to add:

Some of Obama's other endorsements:

Marc Andreesen (co-founder of Netscape)
William Louis-Dreyfus (billionaire investor)
George Soros (billionaire investor)
John Thompson (CEO of Symantec)
Eric Schmidt (Chariman/CEO of GOOGLE)
Indra Nooyi (CEO of Pepsi)



You did not aswer the question. Would you, Merris, go up to Bill Gates, or anyone making more than the 250 k per year and ask them to give you more of their money?

This is what Obama wants.

He has no shame. The generation that grew up before the 60s, such as my parents, would never ask for such a handout, and would give back the money that you wanted to give them.

But somewhere in the last 2 generations, a greater percentage of people have such class and money envy as to expect or feel entitled to more and more of that rich person's money instead of striving to do it on your own.

I noticed you went to the typically personal attacks and assumptions about party loyalty while completely ignoring the IRS's own objective facts about who pays taxes.

97% of taxes are paid by the top 50% wage earners. 3 % of taxes are paid by the bottom 50% of wage earners.

Obama wants to give more to those who don't even pay federal taxes.

Merris, if you want more money why don't you ask Obama for part of the 150 million in donations he got?

Why don't you personally ask Oprah or Soros for their money?

Why should they not personally spread their wealth to you?

Merris, if you want more money why don't you ask Obama for part of the 150 million in donations he got?

Why don't you personally ask Oprah or Soros for their money?

Why should they not personally spread their wealth to you?

You keep trying to make this personal and then keep missing my point that it's not. You are asking me if I want Bill Gates to write me a check. If Obama is elected, I might get lower taxes but the money Bill Gates will be chipping in will also be going to pay for programs that I do think are very important -- even if you don't. I am not voting for Obama for some wealthy person to save me some money on my taxes. There are a million reasons I'm voting for Obama and my own personal savings on taxes resides pretty far down on that list. I'm not looking out for only myself. I know that's a hard concept to grasp for some around here. Some people legitimately need help and last I checked, churches don't provide medical care.

We have a ten trillion dollar deficit now, (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) largely because the republicans have started an ideological war that by its very nature, defies decisive victory and we can't afford to keep hanging on for something that just isn't going to happen.

The bottom line? You wanted the war, but now you don't want to pay for it.

You know how McCain wants to pay for it along with his planned tax breaks for the wealthy 1%? He wants to cut funding that is helping to preserve wildlife and he wants to cut medical care for children, the elderly and the disabled. This means people dying. Many so called "fiscal conservatives" are voting for a party that appears to not even know the definition of the term "balanced budget." You know how John McCain is going to make up most of the lost income for his tax breaks besides cutting programs for the people? He's going to borrow borrow borrow from China. I don't know about you, but being beholden to a fascist country with a population of 5 billion makes me more than a bit nervous. We need to start paying for things ourselves and we need to adopt the pay as we go mentality of the Clinton years. Clinton was fiscally conservative. I'm beginning to think that many republicans have some romantic notion of fiscal conservatism but don't like the reality of what it takes to achieve that goal.

McCain's actions, just like Bush, are marked by impetuousness and an act now, think later mentality. He quickly chose Sarah Palin without fully knowing what she was about or that she knows absolutely nothing about foreign policy or anything else for that matter. He suspended his campaign to get his party to pass the bailout plan that they ended up rejecting, causing him embarrassment. He ran around, raised the panic level and accomplished nothing. And now Joe the Plumber is his guest star on the campaign trail. It's just too ridiculous for words. I'm honestly just embarrassed for him at this point.

Obama, on the other hand, has always remained calm, cool and collected. He speaks with sense and yes, compassion (whether you think that's important or not).

So I guess this is the point where we just have to agree to disagree.

It's time to focus energy elsewhere and yes that means volunteering for Obama and getting out the vote. So peace to you and yours! :)

Merris

you keep avoiding the question.

"You are asking me if I want Bill Gates to write me a check. If Obama is elected, I might get lower taxes but the money Bill Gates will be chipping in will also be going to pay for programs that I do think are very important"

How do you think he is going to pay for the programs he proposes or the refunds and tax credits for those who do not even pay federal income taxes?

And it is personal, when someone works hard to make a living and raises a family and the government keeps raising taxes and taking more and more of your take home pay - it is personal.

Have you ever looked at the IRS's tax brackets - educate yourself and understand that those who make more do pay a greater percentage of their income already.

The other side of the equation is reducing government spendng , which you hardly hear from Obama, other than his turn tail and run away in defeat in OIF and OEF.

How about cutting funding to ACORN for starters?