The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

Perhaps you don't think capital gains tax is a big deal, but it does apply across all backgrounds. Even "lower class" occasionly get hit by capital gains I certainly trust McCain more when it comes to cutting taxes.

Re: Carly's comments -- I thought after Rev. Wright, no "guilt by association" would be allowed?

And forget flag pins, that's 13 full size American flags backing up John Sidney McCain.

Come on, McCain is not being truthful, he merits four Pinnochios. Typical gop strategy, try to mislead and dupe enough Americans, distract them from major economic and social problems. Republicans offer no meaningful solutions for, especially in health care reform. They are highly condescending, thinking Americans are foolish and ignorant enough to accept their propaganda.

JakeD -- sorry, Dude, you just don't seem to get the concept of "guilt by association." When the campaign appoints someone to speak for them on economic issues, (like Ms. Fiorina) their pronouncements merit close scrutiny. When someone tangentially associated with a candidate, like, oh I don't know, a candidate's dumped ex-wife, or pastor, speaks or is spoken about -- THAT is off base.

NO NEW TAXES- JUST AN EVER-INCREASING GOVERNMENT DEBT. TURN A BLIND EYE TO DISMAL EDUCATION AND INADEQUATE HEALTH CARE BUT FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE DON'T CONSIDER CUTTING THE PENTAGON'S REQUESTS FOR BIG BOY TOYS OR ASKING THE OBSCENELY RICH TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.

Sorry, Independent, but the Fact Checker is NOT saying that McCain is being untruthful.

martin:

So you admit that Barack Hussein Obama wants to raise every tax in the book?

CUT the friggin spending!!! WE will drown in debt if BHO gets 1/2 of his programs in effect. I am tired of giving the gov't 1/3 of every dollar I earn!
By the way, drill our own oil!!!

JakeD: You live such a pathetic existence. Your life's failures are evident with every word you type. So sad - but I guess that's expected of you.

Carly Fiorina! There's an expert on mismanagement. Tens of millions to run HP into the ground. Get economic advice from someone else please Senator McCain.

Maybe I'm just young and naive, but given our nation's budget situation, taxes will have to be raised at some point. It is simply greedy for us to delay that raise in taxes for those who come after us. The longer we delay it, the greater taxes will have to be eventually raised.

So Jake D, if you admit that you are greedy, and you are willing to let your descendants deal with our ancestor's problems, then I respect your opinion, but still hope that you will discover altruism some day.

what i don't understand is if mccain is so much in favor of free markets and stuff why is he in favor of subsidies for oil companies?
The argument is that they need an incentive to refine oil. Well if they are making record profits are they not incentive enough!!

MAX:

spending needs to be cut on areas like defense (missile shield!) and building stupid walls on borders which don't serve any purpose. If the country sends people to fight a war, the country ought to take care of them, the stickers on cars "support our troops" don't mean anything unless you give them an opportunity to build a career or provide them health care.
and the country needs to spend more on education and keeping the kids in school otherwise it wont be long before the border fence will stop people from US going to mexico in search of jobs!

I look forward to the "town hall" meetings with Obama and McCain. We will see then exactly what each candidate intends to do. Until then, why not talk about other news -- what's happening around the world? Got time to do some in-depth reporting? I would really appreciate learning something new, rather than hearing you speculate about how many pinocchios McCain should get for attempting to distort Obama's tax plans.

Carly F for economic adviser? You gotta be kidding. The disastrous Compaq merger, 10,000 people laid off in response to the most outrageous tax grab ever on foreign income, and oh yes, illegal investigations. What a standard, what a standard bearer...

the rich in America have gotten lots of tax breaks since Bush came in to office and we continue to spiral into debt. I don't see how letting the tax cuts expire is going to do any thing but good. they where rich before the tax cuts they will be rich after the cuts expire. Its funny that conservatives are crying over the fact that people who make over 250,000 a year are going to have to pay there fair share like they used to again. I wouldn't mind seeing the riches 1% get taxed 50% actualy. They would still be richer then they deserve and I wont feel too sorry for them because they only brought home 2billion instead of 4billion.

McCain is pulling a slick one and in a way his lying. This one should deserve a 4 pinochios for McCain.

McCains plan is to keep the tax breaks for the rich which makes more than 250,000 dollars and Obama wants to remove those. These tax breaks doesn't include all of America.....but for the Republicans and John McCain, they think that everyone in America makes more than 250,000 dollars.

Obama will remove tax breaks from the rich and basically give the breaks to the poor and middle class. He won't be taxing the poor and middle class as what McCain and his trickle down economics seem to want you all to believe.

McCain is a liar. He doesn't know what his talking about when he says that Obama will tax everyone. The reason why his saying that Obama will tax everyone is because all of McCains friends are all rich and make millions of dollars. So therefore he thinks everyone is rich as well.

Supply Side Economics, first employed by Reagan, was meant to be the shot in the arm type economic therapy whereby the ensuing surplus would pay back the deficit after the stimulus took hold. It was never meant to be a status quo sort of thing. Somebody's got to pay back the deficit and to not do so is simply stupid as continued deficits will make our US dollar shrink smaller than the Russian ruble. Both the Reagan & the last Bush Administrations are responsible for these atrocious deficits. And any economist who says both McCain & Obama tax plans are about even are FLAT WRONG. Lessening taxes on the middle & lower class at this juncture will stimulate demand and thus dollar velocity and if implemented with common sense trade and energy policies will undoubtedly make this American economy bloom like never before. Listening to McCain pipe out the old faulty economic formulas makes me cringe. People buy it because they can't look beyond their own checkbook. Reality has come a knockin and its time to answer the door. Who spent all the money thus creating these deficits? George W Bush did! How can we possibly continue doing things the same old way and expect a different outcome? I just hope and pray people use their brain this next election

I watched a very brief part of interview on a cable news channel today with Carly. As I recall, she said McCain's fiscal propoaals, if enacted, would result in a balanced budget by 2013. What has McCain specifically advocated reduced in government spending to make up for reducing current big deficits, while keeping tax cuts for rich people? We have gone through this before with Reagan and Bush II. The results were record peacetime budget deficits.

"A surrogate, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, insists that Obama has not proposed "a single tax cut" and wants to "raise every tax in the book.""

The fact checker doesn't normally confine himself to simply the words of the candidate, he will add or subtract points for the statements of the candidates campaign.
If Fiorina is really a surrogate (holds an official position in the campaign)then McCains campaign put that out and it's a bold faced lie.
So I spent a couple of seconds on the Internet looking that question up, and here is what I found...

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_8501446

"Fiorina was named Friday by the Republican National Committee as a leading surrogate for the McCain campaign and as chairman of fundraising for get-out-the-vote efforts"..."McCain relied on Fiorina, letting her answer questions at town halls on economic issues."

She does his economics homework for him, she is in fact an official surrogate. I think she can safely be considered part of his campaign,

Seems like the progressives are owed some noses, Mr Fact Checker, sir.

Folks, the truth is that everyone benefited from the so-called Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

I know the truth can hurt.

Unless Congress takes action BEFORE those tax cuts expire we will all have higher taxes. Neither Obama nor McCain can do anything about it.

And FWIW, many low income and middle income earners can and do experience capital gains. Mr. Obama is wrong on that point.

What should concern everyone more is the disaster that both candidates support called cap and trade.

Of course if they are trying to hurt workers in those evil high emissions industries as well as consumers at all levels, then that's a good way to achieve both.

The Republicans are raising taxes on future generations due to their deficits and on state and local taxpayers due to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy drying up federal revenue for schools, parks, and police. Over the past 25 years, deficits have grown faster under Republican presidents than Democratic ones. McSame continues down the same road to ruin.

Let's just borrow more money from China. I'm sure they'll never want to be repaid!

I, for one, think it is beyond criminal to ask our kids and grandkids to pay for all of this nonsense. Between the war and these tax cuts, when and how are WE going to pay for this? Is it fair for my 3 year old to be taxed heavily when she is of age to pay for our mistakes?

JakeD is an old recovering lawyer from California who has voted Republican since Hoover. He practices the same sort of misdirection doublespeak that "flimflam" John McCain used in this example of this carefully parsed dogpiddle.

When we talk about wanting change ---this is the sort of horsehockey that we have in mind.

IT IS AMAZING HOW ANYBODY UNDERSTOOD A WORD MCCAIN WAS SAYING ABOUT TAXES TODAY IN WASHINGTON. ON SEVERAL INSTANCES HE COULDN'T READ THE TELEPROMPTER. MCCAIN WAS BOOED BY THE CROWD TWICE AND HE MISPRONOUNCED WORDS THROUGOUT THE SPEECH. MCCAINS SPEECH TODAY WAS A DISASTER AND IF IT WASN'T FOR THE REPORTERS MANY OF US WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT MCCAIN WAS TRYING TO SAY. I THINK ITS ABSURD THAT MCCAIN CONTINUES TO MAKE THESE SILLY MISTAKES AND GAFFES REPEATEDLY AND GO UNNOTICED. MCCAIN IS A WALKING GAFFE AND I'M TIRED OF THE MISTAKES THE FLIP FLOPS MCCAIN IS MAKING ON A DAILY BASIS.

zz8b5ov5vlg http://www.198380.com/318313.html > daw2hmxiena2 [URL=http://www.924087.com/200760.html] p4p9ma73gglw2v5sr [/URL] obzsjerulezr1

2iwnfrzok http://www.406915.com/794424.html > a8p5rc8vxfl69y [URL=http://www.229438.com/189314.html] nao32wn5 [/URL] b3uu4z1kuhbk

Capital gains earned in 401(k) accounts are not subject to capital gains taxes, as is poiinted out in this article. Most middle income people earn capital gains in these pension plans. Nor are capital gains earned by direct investment by the taxpayer subject to Social Security taxes. That is, gains earned on stock investments or gains on the sale of a home are not subject to Social Security taxes. John McCain should stop whining.

Here we go again. Two pinocchios for:

1. Carly Fiorina, the disgraced former HP CEO that (incredibly) McCain has chosen as his economic advisor, falsely charges that Obama has proposed no tax cuts. This appears to be a lie (although Fiorina has proven herself to be so incompetent that her statement may merely be a demonstration of her ignorance).

2. Carly Fiorina, who failed so miserably at HP that she was forced out to prevent further damage to the company, and who now is McCain's economic advisor and campaign surrogate, falsely claims that Obama wants to raise "every tax in the book.". This is dishonest hyperbole.

3. John McCain 'greatly exaggerated the adverse impact' of a rise in capital gains taxes. 'Greatly exaggerated' -- as in he lied.

4. John McCain says 'Under Senator Obama's tax plan, Americans of every background would see their taxes rise'. Here we have another bald faced lie. Obama has promised tax breaks for middle and low-income Americans, as Fact Checker acknowledges. Could it be that since multi-millionaires like McCain won't benefit from them, he fails to notice that they exist?

So, Mr. Fact Checker, are you once again claiming that these lies aren't as serious as Obama describing his ancestor liberating a WWII concentration camp and mistakenly naming the wrong camp? You gave Obama three pinocchios for that.

BTW -- Has McCain chosen Carly Fiorina as his economic advisor because he wants to do to the United States what she did to Hewlett Packard? Be afraid! Be very afraid!

Carly Fiorina did a terrible job at HP ( I have that from HP employees) and was widely considered out of her depth operating at that level in business. Her comments here just reinforce the view of her as flaky and more interested in soundbytes than action.

There's a strong argument to be made that the low rate of taxation, especially capital gains tax, has significantly contributed to the current economic malaise. Professional investors, including banks, look at an investment in terms of risk vs. return. Higher cap gains tax would have reduced the return potential slightly, this making some of the more risky investments (sub prime mortgages etc.) less appealing. Who knows, if the banks weren't in such trouble now the stock markets might be more stable and investors wouldn't be driven to buying commodities, which has been driving the price of oil up so much.

Just a thought I'm having..

I liked McCain at one point - but I feel that he has now allowed himself to be tied too closely to failed Republican policies. It is time to get rid of the Republican party and replace it with a socially conservative but economically progressive party. Then those of us who support marriage and family and have respect for religious Americans will not have to pay the price of fattening the rich in order to express our feelings.

Hey, Jake D, can you give me an example of how a capital gains tax would affect me?

I'm 36, unemployed, been trying to work my way through school for nearly 20 years now, so i'm still in my sophomore year.

I owe about 18,000 dollars from a student loan of $9,000 I took out in 1999 (that's at 6.5% interest).

I am falling behind in my child support payments, the phone is ringing off the hook, because I am AGAIN not able to pay my SallieMae student loan payments.

I just got turned down for a job holding a stop sign for a construction crew, based on my "driving record" (I got a DUI in 2002), which was a $12/hr job. That hurts.

Anyway, tomorrow, I will be talking to the manager of the movie theatre here... AMC, where they pay $8 /hr and the manager told me it's strictly part time, but, I can pick up other people's shifts and he would allow me to do that "within Reason".

My rent is $960/month... My wife has a pretty good job, but not THAT good. We are getting deeper and deeper in debt, and my son is coming for one month this summer, from Spain, where my ex lives.

At the same time, my wife's job is sending her overseas on a 3 - 6 month assignment, so, I will not be able to work (who will watch my son?) when she is gone and my son is here.

Anyhow, Not sure where capital gains enters into my "lower class" equation.

I know Obama wont solve my problems, but giving the Republicans 4 more years would be like giving the Nazis another shot, if they promised to play nice, after WWII.

Things seem to be pretty much going to hell, JakeD, at least where I'm standing.

PS - Starbucks/Peet's Coffee pays $8/hour, but the ones within driving distance of me, only hire for 4 hr shifts/day, up to five days a week. That's 20 hours a week (an average of 21 would entitle me to "benefits") for a grand total of... $160 per week... BEFORE taxes.

Roughly I could take home enough money to fill my gas tank three times in a week, IF I got the 20 hours, no guarantee.

I'm pretty close to turning to crime, and I will be targeting the same people that can afford these tax cuts.

I salivate just thinking about revenge time.

I saw a guy drop his girl off for school last week, right down the street from my apartment. He dropped her off at the Episcopalian School in a Rolls Royce.

That's just disgusting.

So, yeah, I'm really worried about that piece of sh1t's capital gains tax. REAL worried.

I'll put it this way... I WISH, AND HOPE AND PRAY, that someday SOON, I will be worried about Capital Gains.

And when I am, I will shut the F**k up and be GRATEFUL for this problem because I will know many have it waaaay worse than I, and I will consider it part of living in a civilized society that the "haves" help the "have nots" and remember not to complain about how expensive it is to give people a decent education or healthcare or financial help so they don't have to live in the street.

But that's just me.

Carly Fiorina is a B1tch.

She was unemployed, fired, let go, from Hp, then she writes that BS Book (though it WAS pretty well written, it was full of lies and omissions), and now she wants to help the Republicans to 4 more years.

No THANKS !

Too bad this woman couldn't find another job. She's a LIAR, Thanks to Fact Checker for spotting that.

Keep an eye on her. Everything out of her mouth is a mis Truth.

What a Corporate Wench.

I'm tired of sending a third of every dollar I have to the government. I'm for the tax cuts Obama proposes. People, don't buy the rhetoric. Look at the actual platforms.

McCain's ok, but his speech was totally bull. You can all it 'misleading' or and 'exageration' if you want. I call it a lie. Look at the facts.

You want lower taxes, vote for Obama.

Um, yeah...ONE Question:

Why Didn't my Taxes Get Lowered By Bush?

Answer:

I wasn't Rich.

Republicans Should be used as Fuel for Cars... Burned into sludge and used to grease engine parts.

That's how much they care about others. F 'em.

I'm a small business owner, and as such I find it interesting that not once did you mention Obama's plan to eliminate the cap on Social Security. If that plan is enacted, that alone would cost me roughly $48000 based on my last year's income. Its good to know that my higher taxes would be rebated to lower income families to pay for health insurance because my employees, for whom I currently provide health insurance, will need the cash....

Nobody is going to change anybody's mind here. If you don't like Obama, you probably perceive McCain's speech to be balanced and fair. It wasn't. It was as disengenuous as Obama's claim that McCain wants 100 years in Iraq.

Horse piddle.

Democrats, try to get other people to register to vote. Most people are middle or low income, so most people will benefit directly under Obama's plan. If we can just get them to vote we will win.

Well, Americans can decide whether it is "tax and spend" or "borrow and spend." It seems that "borrow and spend" is not fixing the infrastructure, is running up the national debt to stratospheric highs, and lining the pockets of the wealthiest among us. If we get what we pay for, then the Republicans are making sure that we are getting nothing except for a bloated debt. The chickens are already coming home.

Just bother to read a couple of the comments. My reactions:

1. Everyone in America wants free health insurance, but nobody wants to stop eating McDonald's and start hitting the gym...

2. Why am I supposed to worry about some fat slob who couldn't finish college in 18 YEARS; has a child for whom he can't provide; gets a DUI (hmmm, I can afford liquor, but not my child support...); and wants to pray for the day he has to worry about tax increases. My advice - stop praying and making excuses. Get off your fat ass and work!

3.Clean-burning Republican Fuel is an idiot. Everyone's taxes - across the board went down as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts (does anyone remember that they were in response to the lagging, post 9/11 economy?). However, if you were only paying $3k in taxes and that was dropped to $2700, you probably didn't notice. However, if you were paying $144k, as I did, and they dropped to $125k, it was kinda nice. But did you notice? I still paid $122k more than you did, you jackass!!! That's 40x what you paid, and my income was only 5x your's. And, what's more - I'm the one who invested my income in a business to create jobs for morons like you!!! Go read Atlas Shrugged...

The Obama campaign is right to disaggregate the whole tax issue.

The first step to getting out of the deficit spending habit is to come to grips with the fact that tax policy is more complex than "tax or no tax".

Once we get beyond the slogans and the spray, then we can have a discussion about who owes what to society. My bet is that most Americans are willing to pay their fair share.

Under Obama, if an older person sells their home and makes a profit (over the tax threshold) that old person's capital gains tax would almost double.

We are not talking about rich people here, we are talking about a regular older person trying to sell their empty nest.

Obama's plan is a massive tax assault on the middle class. Make no mistake about it. Don't be seduced by his pretty words- he wants our money, not just the money of the rich.

Jeff S writes: 'I find it interesting that not once did you mention Obama's plan to eliminate the cap on Social Security'.

A lot of things weren't mentioned. Maybe that's because the subject of the thread is to check the veracity of the attacks McCain and his campaign have been making towards Obama's tax plans -- attacks that turn out to be lies. Could it also be that the reason 'Obama's plan to eliminate the cap on Social Security' wasn't mentioned was because that's a misleading description of his plan?

What Obama is proposing is to eliminate the $100,000 ceiling upon which the payroll tax is levied, but to create a "donut hole" exempting earnings between $100,000 and $200,000. So, if you make between 0 and $200,000 your payroll taxes won't change. If you make more than that you'll be giving some of your Bush tax cuts back.

By comparison, the McCain plan reduces revenues from the Social Security system (due to private accounts) while somehow promising to not lower the benefits those revenues were going to pay for. It the typical republican 'free lunch' scheme. Why do the repugs think we can just pile up debt forever (or do they just think that eventually it will be someone else's problem)?

Taxes...Taxes...Taxes...
The scary part is that for 80% of the tax paying public, Capitol Gains, Estate inheritance, and everything other than straight income have little impact on what they pay in Federal Income Tax. You can make 80% of the people happy by simply expanding the brackets and lowering the rate. Let's say you make that net result a reduction of 50%. The difference in tax brought in could be recovered by raising the amount of tax paid by the wealthiest 1% by 4%.
Let's see, you make 80% of the people happy, while upsetting 1%. Seems like a good way to get elected, but somehow most of the politician's buddies are closer to the 1% crowd, so we don't want to get to crazy. Somehow, there a belief that paying taxes is a patriotic duty of every citizen. Putting food on the table, education, good health are just luxuries.
McCain should have a specific non-Bush taxes plan before he starts throwing stones. At least the democrats have identified that the lower and middle class need help. Still, all politicians get a boat load of Pinocchios on taxes.

Problem with Obama's proposal, as we have learned in Maryland last year, is that the proposed tax increase gets passed, but then the Legislature refuses to pass the tax break, on the grounds that the deficit would not permit it.

First - the donot hole is an option, but not necessarily the policy, as of yet. Second, it appears to me that Obama is advocating both a repeal of the Bush tax cuts AND some tinkering with Social Security. And, as a small business owner that gives me a triple whammy when you include the fact that I would be paying BOTH SIDES of the social security increase. The question is, facing such a situation - Do you think I'm just going to rollover and pay the tax? No, I'm going to search for ways to offset the increase in taxes. I have a few options - I eliminate health care for my workers (I'm in a industry where most companies already do not offer this benefit, so competitive disadvantage is not an issue); or I decrease my investment in new equipment; or I eliminate a position. No matter how you slice it, the options aren't good. Frankly, I work my ass off, routinely putting in 60 hours a week at the office, not counting all the time I spend worrying about it when I'm not in the office. Few of my 25 employees put in more 40 hours, and even fewer of them give their careers a second thought once they leave the building. Why should I sit back and let the government redistribute my wealth?

Republicans have a way of distorting truth. The tax reduction with the sunset provision was sold as a temporary stimulus- not a tax cut. The snap-back to the pre-existing tax rates at the time of the sunset is not a tax increase. If you applied this distorted Republican logic to comparable situations you'd see some strange results. For example, if you let a relative use your vacation summmer home as a primary residence, paying for only the utilities, while he was recovering from a bad economic event you'd be shocked if he turned around and claimed that the house was his; or, if he claimed that he had the right to stay there forever, paying for only the utilites; or, that you were unfairly raising his rent once you required him to pay some. Free Riders and thieves.

Jamie,
It is already obsurd that I pay 1/3 out of every dollar that I work for to a government that is spending out of control. To raise taxes and pay more is sickening. I work hard everyday and if Obama gets elected, I fear that I will lose even more of what I make so he can redistribute the wealth. That is what his goal is. To redistribute wealth from those who work hard and succeed and give it to those who won't work.

Way back in 2003, a wise man once said that you can't cut taxes and wage a war at the same time. I wondered what happened to that man.

To Jeff S,

Reading your description of yourself, you sound like a hero. And clearly the employees you hired are a pack of jerks (don't the Ayn Rand fans call them 'parasites'?).

Maybe we can find some volunteers to pay your share of taxes of taxes for you. Any takers out there? Jeff needs help (unlike the rest of us lazy bums).

Ok, I admit that was pretty snarky. But seriously, how much tax do you think you should be paying? Do you consider the government's debt your debt or someone elses? Do you think paying for the misguided war we're mired is 'redistributing wealth'?

Guess what, folks? Someone down the line is going to HAVE to raise taxes to pay the debt that we've racked up over the past 8 years. Seeing how fiscally irresponsible Republicans have been since 2000, I think it's a stretch to believe that McCain can put together anything resembling a balanced budget without raising taxes.

Any of you who voted for Bush have no right to complain about increases in taxes - your guy is the one who put us in this position.

And on topic, two P's is a bit low for this distortion of facts.

You can't make everyone happy.

Take Jeff S (see comments below), for example. He's a reasonable guy, a business owner, provides health insurance for his 40 employees, and works 60 hours a week. He paid $126,000 in income tax and earns about five times as much as his employees. I don't blame him for being against Obama's tax increases for the wealthy. He's not wealthy.

Myself, I work about about 45 hours a week and my family lives on about $60,000. We have a car, health insurance, and a pretty good life. We save everything we can for retirement, at the moment about $200 a month.

I know small business owners work very hard. I know they take risks, and I know that day in and day out they have to deal with people trying to take advantage of them. They deserve to earn and keep more than average wage earners do.

So where is the solution?

Well, maybe I'm biased, but I just think if we have to choose between who pays more and who pays less $250,000 is a reasonable line to draw.

What Republicans refuse to mention is that the reason they put an expiration date of 2009 on the Bush tax cuts back in 2001 and 2002 was because they wanted to claim they would be able to balance the budget in 2009. Now things have gotten so bad, they won't even be able to balance the budget if the tax cuts expire, and McCain wants to enact new tax cuts to extend them.

Just so everyone understands, these tax cuts aren't cutting any taxes. They are merely deferring taxes to future taxpayers. Why? Because these tax cuts will increase the deficit. The deficit will be financed with US treasury bills and bonds, with maturity dates as long as 30 years into the future. So, your and my kids will have to pay these taxes --- WITH INTEREST!.

So, any tax cut that increases the deficit is in effect, stealing money from future generations. John McCain is just another deadbeat Republican. So much for the "Straight talk express".

Um, I don't know if you noticed, but we're literally trillions of dollars in debt. At some point, we're going to HAVE to raise taxes, just to pay debt, not to mention rebuild our infrastructure, invest in research and technology to make us competitive, and educate our children so that they stop falling further behind than they already are. That's reality, folks. The alternative is to keep passing the buck to my kids and their kids, something I find reprehensible. Bite the bullet, and unclench your wallet from your fists, and finally be willing to give back to this country.

Sorry, guys, but I have to go golfing this morning. Capital gains CAN impact even those lower class people when they are forced to sell assets to pay for child support and/or liquor.

Suffice it to say that there isn't a tax cut out there that Barack Hussein Obama likes -- as someone else pointed out, above, I will believe his "promised" reductions to middle class taxes when I see them, and even then it does not mean he likes it but simply is proposing what is politically expedient -- if anyone wants to debate the tax issue when I get back, please start by familiarizing yourself with my position:

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes

As a practicing CPA I would give the McCain camp four Pinocchios for this smear. My 400 tax clients make a average of $125k per year ranging from 25k to 750k. Only about 5 clients would pay significantly more in taxes. The vast majority of my clients will pay about $200 more in taxes per year but will receive more than that back in credits. I think this is a case of the main stream media either showing a conservative bias or overcompensating to the mantra of liberal media. My average client will come in expecting to get zapped and it will not be noticeable. Maybe my clients think I am a genius and that is why they love me. I hate to break it to them ..... no one is planning to raise the taxes on the middle class

Tax cuts DO NOT pay for themselves. The current tax cuts reduced revenue by 2.2% of GDP. Combined with increases in spending of 1.9% of GDP, we are looking at a deficit of 4.1% of GDP. This is why we now owe $10T, which drives down the value of the dollar, which increases the costs of imports valued in $s (can we all say OIL), which increases the cost on nearly everything average Americans consume, while lowering the value of their income.

If you want more of the same -- vote for McCain. Parsing words to obscure the truth may not be lying, but it is no less dishonest. Haven't you all had enough of this?

Dyinglikeflies said:

"Under Obama, if an older person sells their home and makes a profit (over the tax threshold) that old person's capital gains tax would almost double.

We are not talking about rich people here, we are talking about a regular older person trying to sell their empty nest.

Obama's plan is a massive tax assault on the middle class. Make no mistake about it. Don't be seduced by his pretty words- he wants our money, not just the money of the rich."

For a single home-owner, one would have to have gains over $250,000 plus the cost basis of the home. So, if you sell your home for $300,000, and you paid $50,000 for it, you'd be even. If you are married, your exemption doubles. So, in that instance, you'd pay nothing, and still have $300,000. Now, this is on your primary residence only. If you have investment property, then this doesn't apply.

Seems to me if you have enough money to put into property, then you shouldn't have to worry about taxes.

Now, Jeff S said:

1. Everyone in America wants free health insurance, but nobody wants to stop eating McDonald's and start hitting the gym...

2. Why am I supposed to worry about some fat slob who couldn't finish college in 18 YEARS; has a child for whom he can't provide; gets a DUI (hmmm, I can afford liquor, but not my child support...); and wants to pray for the day he has to worry about tax increases. My advice - stop praying and making excuses. Get off your fat ass and work!

3.Clean-burning Republican Fuel is an idiot. Everyone's taxes - across the board went down as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts (does anyone remember that they were in response to the lagging, post 9/11 economy?). However, if you were only paying $3k in taxes and that was dropped to $2700, you probably didn't notice. However, if you were paying $144k, as I did, and they dropped to $125k, it was kinda nice. But did you notice? I still paid $122k more than you did, you jackass!!! That's 40x what you paid, and my income was only 5x your's. And, what's more - I'm the one who invested my income in a business to create jobs for morons like you!!! Go read Atlas Shrugged...
**********************

If'd you'd bother to take off your moral-filter glasses and read - the man you were speaking about is trying to do the right thing. He's trying to get a job, trying to earn enough to live on. I'd like everyone who complains about "I'm paying too much in taxes" to actually live like someone else in a much worse situation for a while.

Also, it sounds like you'd be a real sweet guy to work for - all your employees are "morons".

But McCain didn't refer to "Americans from every background"...he literally said "all Americans."

McCain used his patented Straight Talk to lie.

But, as usual, another McCain press secretary-wannabee helps him out.

Your (and Jeff's) tax money at work
--or--
'Redistribution of wealth', republican style:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7444083.stm

1. If you have a couple, each earning 50,000 per year in Washington (fairly close to the median level, and definitely not rich), wouldn't the increase the social security tax to a ceiling of $250,000 be a tax of over 15% of any moneys they earn over $91,000 per year.
2. If the tax cut that Senator Obama is talking about is a tax credit of $1000 per year, this seems to be a situation of the government giving you your money back so long as you spend it the way that the government wants you to spend it.
3. Money KEPT in 401(k) plans are exempt from capital gains taxes (Capital gains taxes only are imposed when you sell in most cases). For 401(k) plans, income taxes will be paid upon withdrawal. Given that Senator Obama desires to increase taxes on dividends and income to 39% outside a 401(k), Other than driving money to 401(k)s and tax exempt funds, and discouraging selling of stocks, I am not sure how he is making a tax cut from his proposal.

What the impact will be will be people taking money away from places where they will be subject to an increased capital gains tax (stocks) and not sell houses. Hey, we loved 1976-1980 the first time, it is time for a repeat?!

To: Peter | June 11, 2008 7:51 AM

This is definitely correct if you make over $250,000. If you are between $125,000 - $249,999 it is "Tell me more". Less than $124,999 vote for Obama.

Jeff:

1) Rolling back the Bush tax cuts will only affect 2% of small business... Tax Policy Center (4/27/07)

From the looks of their analysis, your business would not be affected...

2) Guess you forget to read Obama's tax plan...He seeks to cut the capital gains tax rate to zero (0) for Small businesses and start ups...

this counters your other objection to his economic policy...

You might want to actaully read his economic propoals before you attempt to trash them...

It's funny how Mccain went to small businessess telling them that Obama is bad for them, because this Gas price caused by Bush and GOP did not hurt them or even caused a lot of them to dip into their savingjust to survive this era.

To: Russ S. | June 11, 2008 8:41 AM
He says:
"He paid $126,000 in income tax....He's not wealthy."

He is probably in the top 10% of incomes.

Anyway, the answer is to increase and create tax incentive for business that employ people. And get rid of every incentive that doesn't lead to either employing people or business investments in the 50 states of America. i.e. Foreign investments out the door.

What McCain fails to realize is that the war in "Iraq" is the largest tax (increase) in American history. For all you Neocons,supply side, no new tax Repubs, explain too me how you can spend 30 Billion a month on a non ending war and NOT raise taxes? Where is this money supposed to come from? What is being left behind because of this, please explain, I really want to know!

Why is it just two Pinocchios, once again team McCain outright lies, and it is clear that said lie, benefits them, but for you MR Dobbs, not that big a lie. It is only about issues that effect our country. Nothing like getting a family stories wrong, which you think is the gold standard in mistakes.

As for spending. No one will spend more then McCain. He wants to be in Iraq for 100 years and start a war with Iran. That will be multiple times more expensive then health care for children. Plus Obama's tax plans and spending plans are paid for McCain isn't they are just panders.

First McCain must make Romney his VP right away.. And have him in the future handle all questions about the economy and taxes.
McCain should stick to foreign policy. Second quit worrying about the Bush tax cuts, Democrats control both houses of Congress and their numbers will increase in November. SDo even if McCain win Dems will let them expire. What we have to worry about is if Obama becomes President.
Congress will not stop any of his tax increases... We can't have one party control government, we need a balance in how we handle the economy. Lastly no matter who is in the White House we need to start drilling for our own oil... DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, PAY LESS!!!!

There are many many more Americans who pay $3,000 per year, than $144,000 per year.

That's Why McSame is Forced to lie through his crooked, yellow teeth.

More of the Same.

PS - I hope your businesses go bankrupt and you all have to work with me at the movie theater. After I kick your pampered as$es, I will outwork you. Easily. As I have been doing every day for the last 22 years.

Rich People are Spoiled Pussiez.

I DARE any of you to look at me wrong. I would crush you.

PPS - What business do you have? Are you hiring unskilled labor?

Obama naked!...McCain Wins !!:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7444083.stm

How can you cut taxes when the goverment is taking in less money than it's spending? Republicans continue to be a joke and laughable around the world. Idiots. It's simple finance.

Wouldn't "most economists" point out that the largest war profiting depends on percentage of GDP?

There is one hedge fund manager who made $2 billion last year (yes,thats billion with a B) and yet he pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than I do (his income is onsidered capital gains (carried interest) while mine is just salary). Under Bush the tax system which used to be progressive has become actually regresive and Mc Cain wants to continue Bush's tax policy only more so. Its time to stop believing in fairy tales. If supply side economics can stimulate the economy then pigs can fly

Well, since the Bush and his Republican lackey Congress have been spending like sailors on shore leave, we need to have someone who will be more modest with spending and try to get these deficits reduced. I'd much rather have an honest politician who recognizes that we can't spend, spend, spend money we don't have, than one who promises to give away the store ... but only to the richest Americans ... with no thought about where the money is coming from to fund tax cuts for the rich. I trust John McCain with our economy about as much as I trust George Bush. Which is to say that I don't trust John McCain at all! He is just another dishonest politician who can't be trusted to look out for middle-class Americans.

1.Michele- The point is the fat slob made a lot of wrong choices, and now he wants to play victim and use my hard-earned money to pay for his mistakes. Also, I never once wrote anything about my employees being "morons".

2.YEP - It would affect my business. I will not repeat my previous post. Maybe you should read... Also, what the hell does a capital gains tax have to do with a small business unless you sell it?

3.vcsmith - Please don't misquote me. I never said I wasn't wealthy.

4.Your Daddy...You are nothing more than simpleton. Have fun patroling the aisles and sweeping up the stale popcorn...

And Kay Decker -

Are you not aware that the Democrats control Congress?

Can somebody please explain with no spin what Obamas plan is

In the article we have two statements

1. Obama, by contrast, favors allowing the tax cuts to expire as scheduled for Americans earning more than $250,000 a year.

This to me says that the current tax rates would continue for those making less than 250,000

but then at the end of the piece we have this

2. The claim that Obama will "enact" the largest tax increase since World War II is also overblown. The Bush tax cuts will expire automatically at the end of 2010, so it is hardly a question of "enacting" a new tax increase. According to Obama's new economics adviser, Jason Furman, the revenues raised from letting the tax cuts expire will be returned to middle and low-income tax payers in the form of tax credits to pay for health insurance, so the overall effect will be revenue neutral.

This to me says that Obama will let all of the tax cuts expire.

So which one is it?

"Paladin7b: If you have a couple, each earning 50,000 per year in Washington (fairly close to the median level, and definitely not rich), wouldn't the increase the social security tax to a ceiling of $250,000 be a tax of over 15% of any moneys they earn over $91,000 per year.(?)"

Uh, no.

Social Security contributions are paid based on AN INDIVIDUAL'S OWN SALARY, not the combined salaries of couples, nor on "any moneys they earn".

SALARY...nothing else; your own SALARY, nobody else's, determines the amount of Social Security you pay.

Obama's Social Security proposal wouldn't affect your mythical Washington couple in the least.

Jake D:
First of all, the people you call "lower class" don't have assets, so to suggest that under Obama they might have to sell assets they don't have to pay for, as you call them, "liquor and child support" shows what an ignorant poorly educated peasant you really are. What your comment suggests is that people with money are good and useful, and those without money are useless and bad.

I must say, you are really the stupidest person I've ever met, and since you never contribute anything thoughtful, I wish you'd find some other blog to visit.

"what i don't understand is if mccain is so much in favor of free markets and stuff why is he in favor of subsidies for oil companies?
The argument is that they need an incentive to refine oil. Well if they are making record profits are they not incentive enough!!"
Posted by: ash

This is the problem with the capitalism/free trade Republicans favor. Civilization is petroleum based, and the oil companies know this--even tricked governments into subsidizing it, although it is, in effect, a "trust." Republicans cite "competition," but businesses look to dominate their markets and eliminate competition. The only entities that combat this type of predation are government--all citizens--which have to regulate the Attila the Hun style of short-term, slash-and-burn economics.

Personally, I favor the Republicans idea of no taxes. This will give us permanet 100% employment and permanet prosperity.

We can operate the government on printing money for all its needs.

under McCain, "effective" taxes will rise for the middle class just as they have under Bush. For example, it is reasonable to think of the price increases in gasoline and food as taxes placed on the American people by Bush's fiscal policies. Likewise, as government services decline citizens must pay more to enter our parks or drive our highways. Poorly kept roads cause drivers to pay more for maintenance. All these things are "effective" taxes. So while Republicans lower taxes on capital gains and large corporations, the middle class takes it in the shorts once again! Do you really expect any difference under McCain? He wasn't even born in the United States and was completely brainwashed during his five years of captivity. He could be the real Hanoi Candidate!!

Jeff S. I understand what you're saying, but the truth is that the vast majority of small businesses in the US are going to be hurt more by the current recession and drop-off in sales. The recession caused by irresponsible fiscal policy. I've already posted why this is the case. What you're complaining about is the amount of profit that ends up in your pocket. I regularly work 60 hour weeks and I don't even own the business or get a share in the profit. Maybe your business performance would improve if you stopped thinking the worst of your staff and motivated them to take ownership of their work.

how can you increase taxes on capital gains...if.......you have NO capital gains.. Pitty the poor unemployed affected by the Republican fueled bad economy...

Jeff S -- Are you not aware that the Republicans controlled Congress through most of Bill Clinton's AND George Bush's presidencies (1994 through 2006, with the exception of the Senate in 2001 and 2002)? And since the Republicans have rubber-stamped every spending bill that George Bush has asked for, with no regard for how such reckless spending will affect Americans now and in the future, no Republican in office today can lay a credible claim to handling economic affairs well.

Jeff S.
So self-righteous. Your posts make me slightly nauseous. How are we to pay back the debt that has grown exponentially over the last years? If not by increasing taxes, how? Do you think people will voluntarily open their wallets and say, "Here, let me help pay down the debt."? Do you think China's not going to come a-knocking for the money they loan us? Instead of putting people down to lift yourself up, why not come up with a constructive solution?

You need to read the capital gains code. A couple making making $65,000 and under now pay "NO" capital gains.

+++++++++
Perhaps you don't think capital gains tax is a big deal, but it does apply across all backgrounds. Even "lower class" occasionly get hit by capital gains I certainly trust McCain more when it comes to cutting taxes.

Posted by: JakeD | June 10, 2008 11:29 PM

increasing capital gains taxes is a burden to every person who is withdrawing money from there 401K plans

Don't forget, the republicans thought up the tax cut expiration to understate the long term economic impact.... all Obama is doing is holding them to their own policy. Also, before McCain was a candidate, he opposed the tax cuts; now he's all of a sudden 'got religion'(?).

I have a better idea. Next filing season, we all pay our federal taxes to our home states. That's right. Just let the federal government starve and let the Federal Reserve collapse. The federal government owes those already-wealthy international bankers $10 trillion. We taxpayers didn't create all that debt, so why should we have to pay it off? If we pay our federal taxes to our home states, we'll have all the money we need to keep our own wheels turning.

The federal government won't be able to do anything about it because they don't have any money. Our state governments will have no choice but to go along with it because it'll be the last money they'll ever get if they don't.

Face it, folks, it's up to us. The only way to straighten out all the crooked politicians is to cut off the money. Don't listen to someone who is completely out of touch with reality, wake them up to it! Now's the time. We sink or swim together. Otherwise, we can just keep bending over for more of you-know-what. Any takers?

To the Doc: You made such an intelligent post ... and then you went Republican on us! I would much rather fight these battles from a higher ground, as opposed to sliming in the mud with Republicans. The real fight here is what is best for America? The answer is that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party will bring much needed relief to America and make us strong once again ... unlike Republicans, who will just continue to whine, cry, piss and moan about every non-germane issue that does this country no good and waste this country's time and resources trying to bring down another Democratic president. So let's keep in mind what's most important: America and making it better for every American, not just the rich.

John McCain was born in America. He served his country honorably in Vietnam. Unfortunately, he sold his soul to the devil over the past 8 years just to get the Republican nomination, and has not acted honorably in protecting America.

There is a correlation between the war and the economy. It is written so all throughout history.

At this period of time, I don't see how these points aren't linked together. We can start minimizing the amounts we are borrowing, and shifting funds for the cause.

We're already paying increased prices for food and gas. I just don't want to be screwed like I felt under Bush. To make further emphasis:

"The Facts

There are significant differences between the two candidaes on tax policy. McCain would like to make the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent, and has proposed a few more of his own."

Lets read on Bush tax cut of 2001 shall we? The article is titled, "Bush Tax Cuts Favor Wealthy." I'm telling you right now, that I don't like it. The first paragraph reads:

"President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office."

There has to be a solution or consenus somewhere. This makes NO sense to me whatsoever. McCain distances himself from Bush, but he's in on similar if not the same stances of Bush.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/13/politics/main635936.shtml

No wonder McCain wants to make these policies permanent.

It's an old conservative game.
If you get most of your income from wages and a little from investments, they point out that a tax increase on investmnents will hurt you. So you should vote with the millinoairs who get most of the benefits from their tax cuts.
By itself, taxing dividends at nearly the same level as wages wouuld hurt the worker with a few bucks in the market. Nobody, however, is proposing this by itself. Obama is proposing allowing the breaks for millionairs to expire. He's also proposing that a little of the money that this has taken from the governemtn be put into tax breaks for people of average income.

He already admitted it - he is no genius in economics. A preemptive strike against the IRS or bombing all tax payers will not help.

Nobody likes the idea of raising taxes but everybody knew that CUTTING taxes in a time of war was fiscal suicide and, now, with a collapsing dollar value being driven by soaring national debt, we have to pay the piper.
I don't like the idea of a capital gains tax increase. I think it should only be temporary, while we chip away at goverment spending (read: Iraq, defense, unnecessary subsidies and certain entitlements) and balance the budget.

You guys have me flummoxed. I paid over 42% of my income in federal, state and local taxes and that doesn't include the FICA taxes that I paid on behalf of my employees . Yet, that is not enough. I'm somehow self-righteous and slimy for wanting to keep a little more that 57%. Fair enough. I'll pay more to do "my fair share" for my country. What are the rest of you going to do? Are you going to quit smoking and drinking and start exercising? Are you going to start investing in yourself to improve your lot in life with continuing education? Are you going to save just a little bit of your take-home pay so you're not a complete drain on the state when you retire?

ITS THIS SIMPLE - I TOOK A RISK AND BUILT A BUSINESS THAT PAYS ME WELL. YOU DID NOT!!!! YET, YOU THINK YOU ARE SOMEHOW ENTITLED TO SHARE IN MY SUCCESS.

FU.

And, Kay?

Since the Republicans had control of the Congress during most of the Clinton years, and Clinton left office with a budget surplus, how does that back you claim that its the Republicans who are drunk at government trough?

Oh, I know. Bill gets the credit, right?

JackAss.

Every one pays taxes and the poorer you are the larger percentage you pay. Income tax and capital gains tax increase may be a moot point to those of us earning under $250,000, but there's a sales tax down to toilet paper, your car as well as a gas tax, almost anything you buy. If you have a home you pay city tax, road and bridge tax (tell me why those brides keep falling and I can't drive 10 miles without avoiding a pot hole), state and county tax, local school taxes, community college tax and new in Austin Texas a Hospital tax; don't think that just because home prices fall by 20% or more that your present taxes will drop. No one is going to give you a free ride on your real taxes or even a break. For the guy who is getting an $8.00 an hour job part time just remember the immortal words of Bush to the woman who told him she had to work three jobs to make ends meet and he replied she was lucky to live in a country where she could get three jobs. Real help is not on they way for any of us. Oh, and don't expect to get your student loan cancelled if we decide to fund $4,000 for college for all or even that portion of what you owe. But while you are living in the street/shelter and your kids are on their own with no supervision think of the real taxes you did pay that are helping bail out the savings and loan once more.

Anyone who accepts Carly "I personally ruined HP/Compaq" Fiorina's support and financial advice, is CLEARLY bought and paid for by someone who has no business buying and paying for ANYTHING.

And Jeff S, YES, Clinton gets the credit. Remember when the government shut down for 10 days, because Clinton refused to sign an unbalanced budget passed by Congress? The standoff between him and Congress? CLINTON forced the GOP Congress to pass a balanced budget, against their wishes! The GOP wanted NOTHING to do with a balanced budget, CLINTON held them to it!

Try and re-write history all you like, JackA$$

401Ks are not "exempt" from capital gains taxes. Instead, withdrawals are taxed at the HIGHER income tax rate. Being "exempt" means you don't have to pay, not that you have to pay more...

In basic personal finance, there are only three ways to save money: 1)increase your income, 2)reduce your spending, 3)increase your income while reducing your spending. Now extrapolate this to the federal government, don't the same three options apply? In no finance or economic manual do you reduce your income while increasing your spending. While we might disagree with Obama on the areas where tax increases are needed, surely no sane person would suggest the current practice of spend what you do not have can continue indefinitely?

JakeD - Exactly what assets are these lower class folks selling? The dominant means to get extra cash has been through debt, either credit cards or cash-out refinancing. So sad...

Perhaps you're suffering from a little sunstroke out on the links.

BB

Steve wrote, "401Ks are not "exempt" from capital gains taxes. Instead, withdrawals are taxed at the HIGHER income tax rate. Being "exempt" means you don't have to pay, not that you have to pay more..."

Steve, yes, 401(K) withdrawals are taxed at the income tax rate, which is generally higher than the capital gains rate. But you missed the whole point of 401(K) accounts. The tax rate applied is the income tax rate at the time of withdrawal. Since 401(K) monies were designed to be withdrawn at retirement, the assumption is that most retired people have a lower income than when they were working. As a result, they would likely be in a lower income tax bracket. So the retiree gets the benefit of paying a lower percentage of income taxes at withdrawal than he would have paid at the time the income was earned (i.e., funding retirement with pre-tax dollars instead of post-tax dollars).

To: Jeff S | June 11, 2008 11:08 AM

My comment is to "Russ S." referencing his comments.
Please accept my apology.
If you follow my posts, hopefully, there is a pattern of facts, concerns, observations, and beliefs.
One of my biggest contentions is that the tax code should give more (a lot more) support to those businesses/companies who employ people.

Sorry, guys, but I have to go golfing this morning. JakeD'

***************
Good, maybe a break from your endless posting trying to prop old man McSame up. Don't forget your glass of SHTFUP juice container - drink deeply...

To the Doc: You made such an intelligent post ... and then you went Republican on us! I would much rather fight these battles from a higher ground, as opposed to sliming in the mud with Republicans. The real fight here is what is best for America? The answer is that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party will bring much needed relief to America and make us strong once again ...

----------------------------------------
Would this include:

Statutory marginal tax rates rising, ranging from a 13 percent increase for the highest income households to a 50 percent increase faced by lower-income households.

A reimposition of the marriage penalty and a child credit cut by $500 per child.

An increase in the long-term capital gains tax rate by one-third (to 20 percent from 15 percent) and the top tax rate on dividends will nearly triple (to 39.6 percent from 15 percent). (47 percent of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79 percent came from households with incomes below $100,000.)

The Alternative Minimum Tax reaching into the middle class, ensnaring 25 million tax filers in its web.(people who earn more than 45000 per year).(Somehow, Senator Obama has not discussed repealing this).

vcsmith - thanks for clearing that up.. My apologies for jumping to conclusions.

Kay - Read the following - from Democrat Central
http://www.democraticcentral.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1154

and tell me who the JackASS is, JackASS.

As we discussed earlier today.

Thank you Jeff S!

I love the "fair share" whining. The top 1% of earners carry 39.3% of the tax burden. Overall the top 20% of earners carry 80% of the tax burden. And guess what,,,, that top 20% of earners was the only portion of the American public to have their percentage of the tax burden raised after the Bush tax cuts. Every category in the bottom 80% of earners saw its share of the tax burden fall with Bush's tax cuts. Has anyone who so blithely excepts the bs line that the Bush cuts only helped the wealthy ever bothered to actually investigate where those cuts went?

I am certainly not rich with an income well below 50k, but I do not intend to leave it there. Already though I pay an uncomfortable sum. 25% of my income goes to federal income taxes, 3% to state income taxes, 14.2% to pay for SS and Medicare, another 8.5% for property taxes, and who knows how much in sales taxes, hunting and fishing licenses, vehicle registration, etc... Let's see, that is 48.7%+ of my income. Granted that the 14.2% is pre-paying for a benefit that I will supposedly get in the future if I live long enough, but that "investment" carries a truly lousy rate of return even if benefits remain as "rich" as they are now and I live to 100.

So I feel like I am already giving enough by saying goodbye to half of my income. The vast majority of that money is just redistributed to other people as I make too much to benefit from much more than infrastructure, police, fire, and defense. I would feel a little bit better if I thought that I would eventually take advantage of the public school system, but where I live it is so inferior to the private options that I hope that will never happen.

So if we are going to raise taxes for further giveaways lets go ahead and raise taxes on everybody. The successful already pay much more than their way.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html

i need a clarification by an economist first: if one eliminates the tax cut of 2001 and 2003 does that equal a tax increase, or just a return to the status quo of 2001 when we had a Five trillion dollar surplus?

oops,, I apparently cannot add. That is 50.7%+ to taxes.

My candidate is much better than your candidate. Take my withering criticism and snarky remarks like the man your mother is, Members of the Opposing Political Party!

Jeff S. (or as you prefer to sign your posts, "Jack Ass") -- Do yourself a favor, and don't sign your posts "Jack Ass." I appreciate that you are aware of your own failings, but I still don't want to see you curse at yourself.

As for what the Republicans get credit for while Bill Clinton (or Bush) was in office, they get credit for some shoddy little marketing effort known as "The Contract With America," which wasn't worth the piece of paper it was written on. The Republicans get credit for doing nothing but spending all of their time, energy and resources on trying to get Bill Clinton out of office (which never happened). Republicans prefer to spend all of their time sniping at Democrats, as opposed to doing anything worthwhile for this country. So, no, Republicans don't get credit for balancing a budget. They don't get credit for welfare reform. The only thing that Republicans get credit for is sitting there on their lazy arses bringing the federal government to a standstill because they're a bunch of whiny-assed crybaby pantywastes that don't do anything good for this country. Why do you think they keep getting run out of Washington on a rail? So long to bad rubbish, Newt/Tom/Trent/Denny, etc., etc., etc.!

Jeff S wrote (before he descended into insults, personal attacks, and profanity): 'Since the Republicans had control of the Congress during most of the Clinton years, and Clinton left office with a budget surplus, how does that back you claim that its the Republicans who are drunk at government trough?'.

Like this. A little history:

Clinton and the Democrats passed their budget in 1993 without a single republican vote. It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses, and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers. It also turned around the deficit spending Clinton inherited from the republicans. When Clinton left office the government was running a surplus and beginning to pay down the national debt.

The republicans like to try to take credit for the balanced budget, but it was Clinton and the Democrats that implemented the budget that made it happen. While the republicans like to try to steal credit for the balanced budget, they don't like to be reminded of the dire economic predictions they made in 1993 about the Democrat's budget -- none of which came true.

When Bush took office the republicans controlled all branches of government. They promptly abandoned the Democratic budget principles in favor of modern republican budget principles -- tax cuts favoring the wealthy, increased government spending favoring cronies and politically connected contractors, and unrestrained deficits. Deficit spending returned immediately. Even without including the cost of the 9/11 attacks, the Afghanistan war (against Al Qaeda), and the Iraq war (against sanity) the budget would be in deficit.

Also remember: The reason the Bush tax cuts expire is because Bush and the republicans CHOSE for them to expire. That's the way they wrote the bill. They had to. There was no other way they could hide the huge debt their budget causes (revealed in budget predictions done before the vote) without having the tax cuts expire and the rates revert to the levels under Clinton. And, of course, once they got their budget passed and there was no longer a need to hide the red ink they immediately began pushing to make the tax cuts permanent.

Hey, by the way, the Democrats are in charge now. Aren't we so excited about how they are running things now? things are going so great now, I can't wait for more Democratic policies.

Fact is, the tax policy center (non-partisan) says that McCain's tax plan gives tax advantage proportionally the more money you make. Obama's plan does just the opposite, but offers a tax break to everyone who makes less than 300,000 dollars a year. In fact, you'd have to make 600,000 or more a year to have any significant rise.

Look, this isn't rocket science. Obama has a responsible plan that will help those who really need it, while McCain will bankrupt the country by giving unnecessary tax breaks to millionaires.

former democrat writes: 'Hey, by the way, the Democrats are in charge now.'

Really?

Last time I checked Bush was still in the White House. And the republicans have been filibustering bills in the senate at twice the rate of any other time in the nation's history.

However, you got this right: 'I can't wait for more Democratic policies.'.
Most of the country agrees with you.

Jeff S. (a/k/a JackAss) -- I'm going to have to go with my first answer and say that you are still the JackAss. Is that schlock from Democrat Central supposed to mean something to an intelligent electorate? It reads more like a badly written letter to Penthouse Forum. Honestly, if that is the sort of "factual background" that you rely upon, then your posts make perfect sense -- uneducated, uninformed, thoughtless, meaningless. In fact, I suspect that you may have written that drivel. You do realize, don't you, why Newt was run out of Washington? Because he so utterly failed in his mission to deliver anything meaningful to America or its citizens. After Bill Clinton's showdown with Newt's Republican Congress left the GOP so bloodied and bruised, Newt went scampering back to Georgia with his tail between his legs. And the pathetic performance of Republicans explains why they can't hold a majority in Congress for more than a minute at a time!

But I don't want to be too hard on any Republican. I actually owe Republicans a great deal of thanks. If it wasn't for Republicans and their asinine behavior, we wouldn't be looking at an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters in this country right now and for the foreseeable future. So, my thanks to every incompetent, worthless, pathetic, do-nothing, inept, unintellingent Republican politician out there!

To BobCN: Excellent post! You do a great job of explaining exactly why the Clinton Administration's policies fared so much better than the Bush Administration's policies. Bravo!

Kay Decker wrote: 'So, my thanks to every incompetent, worthless, pathetic, do-nothing, inept, unintelligent Republican politician out there!'.

I wouldn't enjoy the republican failure too much. Sure, it's good for partisans that want to see a long run of Democratic majorities in the future, but they've done severe damage to the country that I love. Cleaning up their mess is going to be a long painful process.

Oops! By 'they've done severe damage...' I meant the republicans, not the partisans.

To BobCN: Yes, you are right. It will take decades to bring this country right again. But I have hope that some of the worst lessons that we have learned during these long, hard 8 years of Bush's administration will actually make us better in the long run. (I hope!) Trying to make this country right again is what is spurring such a huge turnout in the Democratic primary.

McCain is showing that he isn't quite the maverick he wants people to think, and his honesty is questionable at best. He's just another puppet of the wealthy special interests that control so many of our elected Republican officials.
Our government will have to increase revenue at some point, and making those who have the most pay the most is the fairest way to do it. I opposed Bush's tax cuts in the first place, and letting them expire is the right thing to do. During the Bush years our nation moved closer and closer to a have and have-not society, much like a third world country, and our middle class shrank alarmingly. Obama's tax plan is the only one being offered that gives us a chance to maintain a strong middle class, and help lower income people move up the economic ladder.

If Republicans didn't want the taxes to go back up, they shouldn't have built sunset provisions into their tax cuts. They did hold the House and the White House in 2001 and they held the Senate, House and White House in 2003, when the second Bush tax cuts were passed.

This whole thing can be traced to Republican unwillingness to stand up for what they supposedly believe in.

McSame is a FOOL who parrots what the Lieberman crowd feeds him. As for Fiorina, well, she is the one who almost put HP out of business after driving Lucent to the ground.

John-Michael, you would actually pay less taxes under a plan like Obama's, yet you complain about how much the rich have to carry the burden?

Either you're lying about your income or you really don't know which side your bread is buttered on.

Has anyone out there ever noticed that they talk about how the rich will spend money and stimulate the economy? How about working class? They will spend their money even faster than the rich, but somehow cutting their taxes won't help the economy?

nitpicker wrote: 'If Republicans didn't want the taxes to go back up, they shouldn't have built sunset provisions into their tax cuts.'

I've always suspected that a secondary reason why the republicans chose to make the tax cuts temporary was so that they could run on cutting taxes over and over again with each election cycle. It was about politics and what's good for the party (not what's good for the country).

I don't know if such "fact check" is in anyway meaningful. Obama said he did "a few hours of paper work" for Tony Rezko on national TV, and it turned out to be totally opposite. Politicians lie, anyone don't know about this?

As to Tax, both candidates are wrong. In this so called 'fact check' the "lie" of McCain et al. is simply the reader's interpretation. This kind of "lie" is truth in politicians' ears.

What's wrong with the tax code is not it does not tax enough on the wealthy, it is the loopholes that let the wealthy to evade tax completely. That's where the work should be done. Unfortunately none of the major party candidates is willing to do anythings serious about this. So let's just forget about the tax issue in this election.

John-Michael:

Did you bother to read the article of a STUDY on Bush's tax cut that McCain is interested in making permanent? We ARE following the money.

Read here on Bush's 2001 tax cut:

"Study: Bush Tax Cuts Favor Wealthy"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/13/politics/main635936.shtml

No thanks McCain. Please find another strategy.

OK get this straight, everybody who has a functioning brain: letting Bush's tax cuts expire as scheduled at the end of 2010 does NOT amount to RAISING taxes! The temporary stimulus was NOT going to be a permanent entitlement program for the wealthy. We have ENOUGH entitlement plans for them!

you know, i read jeff s' comments from 6 am this morning where he complains about having to spend an additional $48,000 due to the elimination of the cap on social security. what he doesn't tell you is that number is based on an approximate of $400,000 of net income. come on, if you want to complain about paying more in taxes, then at least have the balls to say you are not a lower or middle class income american. i'm beginning to think that the perks of having more wealth just teaches those people to manipulate to get what they want.

To John-Michael | June 11, 2008 2:02 PM

First, please get a new accountant. If you are doing your own taxes, get help.

Second, what's your point. It seems that you are just rambling.

Third, you have your stats mixed up. the top 1% of households have 39.7% of the country's financial wealth.

Forth, your stated income is easily in the bottom 20%. But who cares about you, lets give the top 1% another break!

Obama will increase taxes on incomes of $250,000 per year. He will increase the 15% tax on capital gains and dividends to probably 20%. This is an increase of just $50.00 annually on $1000 of dividends/capital gains and I challenge anyone to show me they cant afford to participate in paying down the national debt. Remember: taxes pay for the rights to have a constitution that helps the nation stay on the right track economically, legally and educationally.

To: Kay Decker | June 11, 2008 2:30 PM

YIPPY KI YAY, you ride 'em cowboy!

I would offer to pay Jeff S.'s share of taxes, but he keeps referring to himself as a Jack Ass ... and I'm afraid that he would spend all that extra money he's saving on those icky taxes on lottery tickets and beer. Sorry, Jeff S., but I'm doing this for your own good!

Your concerned friend,
Kay

Obama 2008

If you'll care to notice the report you provided only takes into account figures from 2001 and does not include the accelerated 2003 cuts that expanded the new 10% bracket among many other things. My numbers come from 2004 when the accelerated cuts had had a full tax year to show their effects.

Obama didn't actually lie, it was more of an unspoken truth which happens a lot in politics.

I'd like to ask. It's fun to pick on the rich sure, but they'll always find a way to shelter their money. Even if it means leaving the country, So when the rich leave or shelter their money to avoid paying the taxes who gets stuck with the bill again?

Carly Fiorina! There's an expert on mismanagement. Tens of millions to run HP into the ground. Get economic advice from someone else please Senator McCain.
Posted by: David Packard

Only wish it were the real David Packard. Fiona was SOOO savvy that she took HP, a company KNOWN for its high quality test gear, put that name on Compaq, spun it off, and renamed the REAL HP "