A Taxing Debate...

With only four days remaining before the election, debate is still hot and heavy over both candidates' proposed tax plans. Some choice comments from the past few days...

"I do not believe the central issue of tax policy is "fairness." If it were about fairness, there would be no income tax at all. What Obama has done is place a thin veil of "middle class tax cuts" over a policy that is intended to do nothing more than appeal to class warfare. The purpose of an income tax is to finance the government. Period. Taxes are about money and economics. The only logical purpose for changes in the tax code is to affect the economic behavior of people and businesses in order to encourage positive economic behavior such as investments, savings and consumer spending. This in turn increases profits along with government revenues. To me, it makes no sense to redistribute wealth to those who pay little or no taxes. It may make us feel good about ourselves, but it does nothing to encourage job creation, investment in research and development and consumer spending. When we decide there are those in our society that need help, the government can provide help and it is called Welfare. We can argue about what welfare programs are truly necessary and actually assist the poor (see Welfare reform signed by Clinton--good for him) but we should not dress up welfare as a tax cut which results in the government writing a check to millions who pay no taxes at all."
-TennisDaddy

"To clear a few things up about how Obama's plan is going to hurt people making just over the $250,000 level, let's look at the real numbers. According to MONEY magazine, FORTUNE AND the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, here is what will happen to your taxes under Obama's plan:

Under $19,000-cut by $567
$19-38,000-cut by $892
$38-66,000-cut by $1,042
$66-112,000-cut by $1,290
$112-161,000-cut by $2,204
$161-227,000-cut by $2,789
$227-603,000-increase by $12

If you make less than $603,000, the biggest tax increase you can get is $12. You can also see that the majority of the tax relief goes to the real middle class--not the poor. Where do you guys all fall in? If you are paying more than $12 extra in taxes--you need to start buying the beer. If not, thank Barack for your tax cut."
-SC

"The company I work for is a private company owned by the physicians. My physicians are some of the lucky ones who make over $250k annually (many do not). We employ 125 people and service eight hospitals--providing care to over 800,000 patients annually. Our costs (particularly health care) continue to spiral upward--and radiology has become an IT business out of necessity in order to become more cost effective and productive--so we are as lean as we can get right now. Any increased tax on those greedy $250k+ wage earners means my bosses' incomes will go down. Because we have reached maximum efficiency, the only alternative will be to lay people off. Laid off people don't spend money and the economy slides further downward. Businesses that lay people off also have less people on their payroll which reduces income tax revenue. The business owners now have less take-home pay and no longer take vacations or remodel their homes, which impacts the middle class business owner because his "greedy" customers have reduced their spending.

Now some would argue that my owners should be accepting of working harder to make less money and therefore should accept a pay cut to retain their workers. The reality is that I will be forced to lay-off personnel if Obama/McCain raises taxes in an already tight cash environment. Hopefully, I will not become one of those that are laid-off, as I make a pretty good living and we middle managers are the first to be chopped. So, if Obama is elected president and raises taxes on my bosses, can my wife and four kids come live with you?"
-FoxFire

"Why is it that every time a Democratic or Progressive candidate tries to give even the smallest break to the people that have the least, conservatives conclude it will result in them becoming destitute and homeless? That's the same stuff they were warning about when we elected Clinton, and they survived just fine. Now after eight years of Bush disasters they are concerned about Obama costing them their jobs. Same old song. Want to save your employers some cash? End the war in Iraq and the $4 billion-a-month hemorrhage."
-E. J. Black
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

Beware Comrade Obama and Bush Economics

Posted by Scott Cavanagh
Barack Obama is a Socialist... better yet, a Communist. That's all that the McCain camp appears to be left with one week before Election Day. They tried "terrorist" for a couple of weeks but that didn't seem to stick--something about Obama being a United States Senator and model citizen--so now we're left with labeling him some sort of Marxist. Man, how did Barack slip that one past us--and Colin Powell too?

Sure, adjusting tax rates so that the rich pay the same percentages they were paying under those raging socialists Reagan/Bush would be like a regular Communist revolution! Viva Fidel!

Funny how when Bush gives people that are already rich and prosperous huge tax cuts, that's not "redistributing the wealth," but rather providing "tax relief." The principal McCain camp factoid that 95% of those receiving Obama's tax cut do not pay any taxes, is a lie to begin with. Those people pay the majority of their tax (as do 98% of the population) in payroll taxes--a tax the average mega-rich person living off of investments and inheritance (two other taxes conservatives want to eliminate completely to avoid any tax burden whatsoever) don't pay.

Hey Joe the Plumber, or Barney the Butcher for that matter--keep looking out for the welfare of those billionaires, buddy--I'm sure they have your best interests in mind as well--while they set up PO boxes in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying any tax at all. How patriotic. Then later, if they have it their way, they can give that money--tax free--to little Junior, who can sit on his ass for the rest of his life and live off of the tax-free dividends that guys like you helped him accumulate by supporting policies that do nothing for you and everything for him. Guess what else Joe? If you bust your ass to make $60,000 in a year, you now pay a higher tax rate than billionaire Warren Buffett. And that little prick you went to college with who inherited all that cash from his tax-dodging dad--he made $60,000 in investment income and didn't pay a dime.

While 33% of the national work force is making less than $15,000 annually, and half of the country is earning less than $30,000, Republicans are crying "class warfare" because Obama wants to give a tax break to the 97% of the country that makes less than $250,000. What a Commie!! How have Bush/Cheney economics worked for you so far? Just keep pushing the money upwards guys--that's a really great idea. A country with a handful of billionaires and no middle class is not a thriving republic--its freakin' Mexico.

Adios Amigos.

END OF POST

Leave a Comment

Read More......

Barking Back: Top Reader Comments

Mike Hart on The Final Debate:
"I listened to the second half of the debate at work and saw the last ten minutes. When it was over I heard many of the pundits saying McCain had done a really good job; however, I then watched the debate in its entirety on tape and I did not see that - and I do not think it is because I am going for Obama.

Obama was very cool when facing Mac's scurrilous attacks but he handled them all well - especially the Ayers thing (great concise explanation ) and the new stupid ACORN thing (although he should have pointed out that Mac was the key speaker at an ACORN rally in 2006).

Mac got off a good line on not being Bush but Obama had countered that line before and after the line with his remarks how Mac is like Bush with his voting record.

Obama destroyed Mac on health care and left Mac looking stunned as he ripped Mac's lame "fine" thing. The average cost for Americans health coverage is $12,000 by most accounts, not $5,800 as Mac claims and even if it is that number, you still take a loss with his $5,000 credit (if you lose coverage) - so who wants a loss?

Obama gives Mac too much credit on too many things, like the torture issue, an issue that Mac has gone back on. Credit Obama for not doing his slight stammering as much this time and for not agreeing with Mac that much this time.

Great job by Obama clarifying that "Joe the Plumber" would not lose coverage under his plan and small business would not either. No one said "Joe the Plumber" was rich except Mac trying to be funny, fell flat - as did his wealth distribution warfare thing.

The Dems should highlight Mac's statement that they and abortion groups make too much of a woman's health when dealing with abortion - that should be all over ads!

Thought Obama should have corrected Mac on many things when Mac lied/erred but maybe he felt that would use too much time. How could Obama have voted against Breyer? He was not even a Senator then. I think Mac meant Alito and Roberts. Obama should have pointed this out - it would have showed Mac had another "senior moment.""
**********
Carter McCoy on The Final Debate:
"I think McCain may have made up more ground in this last debate than people think. He clearly dominated the first 45 minutes or so and made some very strong points about income redistribution and his own record. This was at worst a tie for McCain. "
**********
Anonymous on McCain's Attacks:
"Casual T--Do you really believe the "hate" speech is going in only one direction in this campaign? Good heavens C.T., have you heard anything that democratic supporters have said about Palin, her family, and even the birth of her child? Are you completely dismissing all of that hate speech? Apparently the feminist movement does? Biggest lesson learned in this election--feminists leaders in America are only concerned about like-minded liberal women. U.S. feminists leaders are AMAZINGLY silent in defense or support of women who are unjustly attacked, and happen to have a conservative viewpoint."
**********
TennisBum on Thoughts from the Editorial Board:
"If you think Obama won't raise taxes on the middle class as well as the wealthy you are naive. Clinton gave the same promise back in 1992 saying he would only raise taxes on those making over $200k. In 1993 he raised taxes on all but the poorest class."
**********
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

Notes on the Final Debate...

Posted By Scott Cavanagh
Easily the most productive and lively debate of the three. Some thoughts I jotted down during the event:

--McCain sure does take a lot of notes. He spent more time scribbling during this debate than he did wandering the stage in the last one.

--The "Joe the Plumber" bit was effective for about the first seven references--by number eight I hoped Joe would lose his business and go bankrupt. No matter how many times McCain repeated the theme, it did not change the fact that Obama's plan would not raise Joe's taxes a dime unless he made at least $250,000 last year.

--McCain showed real political bravery on the question of spending cuts, when he said he would consider repealing lucrative ethanol subsidies that are very popular in GOP-leaning farming states.

--While his voting record may indicate otherwise, McCain had the line of the night when he reminded Obama and the viewing audience that he was not George W. Bush. He continued to impress when he listed the many areas where he has stood up to his party over the years. When put in laundry list form--it is a very strong record.

--Things started to get away from him (as his campaign did IMO) when the subject turned to Sarah Palin. Is it just me, or does complaining about a $3 million planetarium project in Chicago seem a tad ridiculous when your "maverick reformer" running mate requested $28 million in earmarks for her Alaska hunting camp of 6,000? And when did the governor become the foremost authority on special needs children--in the five months since her son Trig was born? Man, that woman is good. According to McCain, she has transformed the entire good old boy network of Alaskan politics, delivered her fifth child, arranged another shotgun wedding, become the foremost expert on special needs kids AND ran for VP--all in 18 months!! You'd think she could handle Katie Couric.

--Forty-five nuclear power plants. Forty-five! That's how many uninsurable--lets replace carbon emissions with a more deadly bi-product--terrorist targets McCain thinks we need to build in the near future. Maybe AIG can insure them--they like big risk. Oops.

--It was great to hear Obama take on the oil companies about the hundreds of miles of coastline which they already control and refuse to drill under. That is a major point in the drill-or-not-drill debate and needs to be addressed.

--Health care was the killer for McCain and really turned the debate back to Obama. Let's face it, no matter how you cut it--and McCain admitted as much himself--the Arizona senator has one answer to the soaring health care costs that are crippling American families and businesses. That entire plan consists of providing families with a $5,000 tax credit-- minus the costs incurred by HIS OWN proposed tax INCREASE on health benefits. The average plan costs about $12,000. You do the math.

--Where the heck was Iraq? Afghanistan?
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

Are McCain's Attacks Going Too Far?

The McCain Camp has ratcheted-up the personal attacks on Barack Obama's past and character since Governor Palin's sudden "discovery" of the Bill Ayers connection last week. Do these insinuations of terrorist sympathies and anti-American behavior on the part of Senator Obama represent a new low in desperation tactics, or are they just par for the recent course of American political discourse? More frighteningly, are they dangerous? Some thoughts on the matter...

CasualT: Things are starting to get out-of-control in terms of the “hate” the McCain campaign is beginning to encourage. I’ve seen clips of McCain and/or Palin rallies where the audience clearly shouts “Kill him!” “Terrorist!” and more. Last night on Larry King, of the three republicans on the panel, TWO of the three expressed strong embarrassment at the tactics being used. To me, they were clearly concerned about possible hate acts resulting from getting people worked up in this manner, and wanted to distance themselves now from what they see as a potential hideous act.

How will Republicans feel if this hate-mongering results in an assassination? I think they need to think about this, and what this would mean for the COUNTRY, whether or not you agree with Obama’s policies. I think we can ALL agree that what happened to Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were bad for this country in a fundamental and extremely significant sense, whatever our ideological background.

BoxCar John: It's truly pathetic what is going on. I would not have dreamed that McCain, who I previously saw as an honorable man, could run this kind of campaign. Obviously I was wildly wrong about his character.

But the really dangerous stuff is coming from Rush, and probably other Right Wing radio programs. I listened to a bit of his program a couple of weeks ago, and it was wildly out of control, even by his standards. Although he chose his words carefully, he was basically calling Obama a traitor who would sell out the country to foreign interests (economically and militarily), and make this country a socialist state. I couldn't even follow his torturous logic in making these claims, to say the least. And callers were not shy about using the words traitor and treason. And this was before McCain started talking about these supposed shady associations of Obama's. Nutjobs listen to Rush across the nation, so it would not be surprising that the result could be violence.

TDaddy: These comments suggest that Palin's arguments about Obama's associations amount to "fighting words" that are intended to incite an imminent riot, or worse - a political assassination. I suggest that is simply not what's going on. The only supportive example I've heard is the wacko at one of the rallies who said "kill him." I concur it doesn't matter whether the guy was referring to Obama or Bill Ayers - the comment was way way way out of bounds of civilized debate. Having said that, I don't see how McCain or Palin is going to control the thoughts and words of every nut-job in the crowd.

What McCain can control is the message. I may not have read everything you have, but my understanding of the offending comments is they deal with Palin's statements that Obama has close ties with Bill Ayers - an unrepentant domestic terrorist. This is not a lie. Bill Ayer's past deeds are well-documented. Further, Barack's association with Ayers is more than just a guy in his neighborhood. The importance of the comments go to two relevant issues: 1) Does having close ties to a number of questionable characters speak to the character of Barack Obama?, and 2) has Obama been truthful to us about those relationships? So, it goes to his character and his honesty. Those are qualities that are important to voters. And, they should be.

Here is a quote from a recent Palin speech:

Barack Obama remembered Ayers as just a guy in my neighborhood. Then the other day though his campaign claimed that for the first time that Barack wasn’t aware of Ayers’ radical background. Yet just two days later they’re that he knew about the background after that first meeting and then last night again, Barack Obama on ABC he left out some key details of his relationship and work with Ayers yet again so we got to try to keep this all straight, that he didn’t know that he launched his political career in the living room of an unrepentant domestic terrorist until he did know about it. (Palin; October 8)

I don't see why this and similar statements should be considered off limits. How does any normal person listen to the above and be motivated to violence? If Palin or McCain actually encourage people to do violence then they should not only be called on it - they should be taken off the ticket. But, these statements are not calling anyone to violence - they are calling people to look more closely at the candidate. Are there crackpots in this country who want to assassinate Obama? Of course there are. That would put him in the company of every other president and major party nominee - heck, even George Wallace got shot while running for president - and he WAS a racist. That's why we have secret service to protect our leaders. In short, my view is that too much is being made of what Palin and McCain are saying and any concern that their speech is inciting violence. McCain has gone negative. I don't care for it. But, that's what presidential politics amount to in the last days of a tight campaign.
POST A COMMENT

Read More......

Thoughts From The Editorial Board...

Boxcar John: The debate was unremarkable. Both men said what you expected them to say. Obama had a chance to seal the deal: had he shown some passion in addition to his mastery of the issues, he might have cemented his lead irrevocably in place. Instead he was once again dispassionate and aloof. McCain, on the other hand, needed to somehow show new energy and ideas, and instead he stuck to the same old script. Verdict: McCain has just enough life left that some unforeseen event could conceivably push him back in it, but time is running out fast.


Fast Kenny: I thought McCain sounded disjointed and incoherent many times and ineffective at making his case. Both dealt mainly in generalities, but Obama sounded more coherent and more convincing in that he has a general plan and set of guiding principles and priorities that will help the country.

Obama briefly zinged McCain on McCain's past deregulation efforts, an issue I'd hoped Obama would hammer on more. "Cronyism" was a term McCain mentioned more than once, as something he detested, which is odd considering that was the enabling factor of McCain's entire career. McCain also brought up his across-the-board spending freeze plan for all government programs, which though it seems like a sledgehammer approach to a complicated budget, I don't know that it's not necessary in order to draw needed attention.

The predicted mud-slinging didn't happen tonight and the discussion was focused mostly on economic and foreign policy issues, which I think worked in Obama's favor. I guess McCain is nobly relegating the mud-slinging to his lipstick-wearing pit bull side-kick.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

McCain's Attempt to Change the Subject

By Scott Cavanagh
As we all know, John McCain likes to tout his "Straight Talk" approach to politics--portraying himself as someone who tells it like it is regardless of the political fallout.

That approach was taken to the extreme this weekend, when the McCain camp openly expressed its desire to "move the conversation away from the economy and the bailout" and focus on "getting tough" with Barack Obama. That's right, not only have the McCain people decided (in the middle of the worst financial crisis in 75 years, no less) to avoid addressing the issues that concern the future of America and concentrate on attacking their opponent personally--they went ahead and announced it in advance.

And boy, were they true to their word. By Saturday afternoon, VP candidate Sarah Palin had dived in full-bore--accusing Obama of "palling around with terrorists" because of his extremely limited association with former Weather Underground bomber and college professor William Ayers. What strikes me so funny about this cynical and desperate tactic is not the fact that it can and has easily been disproved that Obama was close to Ayers, but rather the way in which Palin tried to gain favor by bringing it up.

Everyone knows about Ayers, heck I was warning about Obama's opponents using it against him months ago. If Sarah Palin and John McCain truly believe that Barack Obama "palls around with terrorists" and is a dangerous radical with such terrible associations--why are they just bringing it up now? Should they not have been ringing the alarm bell for months that a dangerous associate of terrorists was trying to hijack the presidency? Did the 64-year-old Ayers suddenly recruit a new group of radical commandos at the exact same time as McCain's poll numbers were falling into the toilet? Of course not. This is just another ridiculous dead rabbit pulled out of the hat by a desperate campaign with nothing to offer but the word maverick. I mean, think about it--they ANNOUNCE they are going to get tough with Obama and the NEXT DAY they are suddenly up-in-arms about Ayers? It's pathetic. Reverend Wright can't be far behind.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

Some lessons from last night's VP debate

--Wasilla, Alaska is now the "Heartland" of America. And I thought it was just the meth lab capitol.

--Winking at the camera is now an acceptable part of a debate over the future of the free world. I actually thought that was just something Tina Fey made up for character effect--but Palin actually does it. I wonder if Nancy Pelosi's non-stop blinking would work for or against her in such a circumstance?

--She may consider herself an agent of change, but one thing will apparently stay the same in Washington as long as Sarah is around--someone awfully close to the Big Bomb Button will not know how to pronounce the word nuclear. In fine Bush tradition, she would control our Nuke-U-ler arsenal--whatever that is. Nice education in the new Heartland.

--Evidently, Governor Palin did study some history at the five colleges she attended, as she mentioned Civil War General McClelland in her answer about troop strength in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, she named him as the current commanding general in that country. That man is actually Gen. David McKiernan.
Posted by Scott Cavanagh
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......