Comments on "The Right View: Why I am Voting (Enthusiastically) For John McCain"

[JaneBlow]

I lively discussion has ensued in response to Curtis Rath's blog, "The Right View: Why I am Voting (Enthusiastically) For John McCain"

http://mckinneynews.net/blog.php?post=761

I cut and pasted the most recent comments below. The forum only allows 10,000 characters in a post. I am hoping I can get everyone to continue the discussion here, since the features available in the forum make it much easier to carry on a back and forth dialogue.

======================================

Posted: October 24, 2008 02:03 AM
Posted by:
J.Q. Public
Member Since:
Feb 4, 2008

The following is a response to Posted: October 23, 2008 1:06 PM Posted by:
H1 Ws13:

You start by claiming that McCain wants to " to cut taxes on the wealthy". See, now this is one of those times when I would normally say something like "what a total load of crap" but I'm going to show restraint and say that this is another gross distortion of the truth. The implication whenever this is uttered is that the goal is to ONLY lower taxes on the wealthy and no one else. The fact is that McCain wants to lower taxes on ALL American's. If that is not the case then please prove me wrong. Now, if Democrats wanted to accurately state the position, they would say something to the effect of "McCain wants to reduce taxes for all Americans but because the wealthy of this nation pay a disproportionately higher amount of taxes, the actual dollar amount that they will not have to pay is going to be much larger, even though the percentage is smaller, because a small percentage of a big amount is still a big amount." Saying, or even implying that any Republican tax plan only wanted to cut taxes on the wealthy is, in fact, a lie.

Another common misperception is that taxes and therefore revenues to the treasury are somehow a zero sum game. In other words, if someone pays less then someone else has to pay more in order to make up the difference. This is absolutely false. Reagan cut taxes from around 70% to 28% and revenues to the treasury doubled. What Democrats refuse to recognize is that it's not a limited size "pie". The pie can grow and the more government gets out of the way and the more government lets us keep more of our own money, the more that pie grows. So no, that's not just a realistic an interpretation.

Now, let's take your specific example of Bill Gates. I'm not a huge fan of Mr. Gates for various reasons but that's beside the point. He is a prime example of a major producer in this country. Just think of the plethora of industries that have spun off from what he started. Just think of all the jobs that have been created as a result. There is no denying that, aside from the Blue Screen of Death, Bill Gates has greatly contributed to our economy. And for doing this, our government thanks him by taking a higher percentage of the money he makes and they take money from every single person that is tangentially related to his business. So, from that single person, the government has profited tremendously and essentially punished him for it. They can call it a "progressive" tax all they want but what it is is a punitive tax. And just to be clear, I'm not saying we shouldn't pay any taxes at all but I do believe it should be a fair tax in that everyone should pay the same percentage. If that's not enough to do what they want then they should do less. Did I miss the part where the Founding Fathers said, "you have the right to pursue happiness but it's going to cost you"?

By the way, I believe that when you state the numbers of how much Obama would cut your taxes that you're not including the fact that he wants to cut the existing Bush tax cuts. Oh, you also need to know that any business that has it's taxes raised will simply pass that cost on to you the consumer. Does Obama illustrate that in his tax plan?

Who nationalized the financial industry? I believe that would be the Democratic Congress. Who contributed significantly to the need? Barney Frank should resign and Chris Dodd should be in jail...for starters. Here again I will restrain myself and say that this infuriating tendency of the typical American to put all the blame or give all of the credit to the person sitting in the Oval Office simply because it gives them a face is...frustrating.

I've already addressed your next comment about "where's the money coming from". I realize that many liberals would love to let the terrorists in Gitmo go free and put the top 1-5% of wage earners in there and confiscate all of their wealth but the fact is, if you took all of their money it would barely make a dent in our national debt. And again, your are taking money away from the people who are creating the jobs. The significant thing you are missing as to the differences between Bush and McCain is that as President, McCain would have much greater direct control over the budgets and vetoes. Obama wants what appears to be close to a trillion dollars in NEW spending. Where is that money going to come from?

Finally, I would like to address your entire last paragraph. You said,

"The example you give regarding low-income wage earners getting a check from the rich guy's taxes is another myth, and you leave out the fact that all wage earners pay the payroll tax. Thus if someone in that situation did get a refund, it would be of taxes he had paid or which had been paid on his behalf."

How is that a myth? I simply took his words, looked at the facts and did the math. So please, explain to me when Obama says that 95% of all Americans will receive a tax cut under his plan and 40% of of those people do not owe any income tax, how exactly will they receive a cut if it's not in the form of a check? Oh, you're right, I did leave out the part that wage earners pay the payroll tax. But then, you forgot to mention that all wage earners have some form of body hair. Silly you say? Not at all, they're just as related. The "payroll tax" or 941 to which you refer is the amount of money withheld from an employees check and then matched by the employer to cover Social Security. This is completely unrelated to the money withheld, or not, for income taxes. So, how exactly does that work? Is Obama going to dip into the Social Security till in order to give those people a refund? What will they do for retirement? I seriously doubt that that is the case. Therefore, the only other choice is that they will be getting a "refund" from money that they never paid in. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe now we're going to just start mixing Social Security money and income tax money all together into one big pot?

I agree that Bush has not been the Conservative I would liked for him to have been but I think that painting McCain or the entire Republican party with the same "stumbling" brush is as fair as saying that all Democrats are as inept as Carter or as immoral as Clinton.

=================

Posted: October 24, 2008 11:41 AM
Posted by:
Jezhoar Flores
Member Since:
Mar 7, 2007

H1,

You only half-way disputed one of my comments to you. Obama's wardrobe allowance. (and that is the least important one).

Interesting.

-Xp007
=================
Posted: October 24, 2008 12:56 PM
Posted by:
Jezhoar Flores
Member Since:
Mar 7, 2007

And...my very reliable sources tell me that Sarah Palin did not accept the 150G in clothing.:)

-Xp007
=================
Posted: October 24, 2008 1:12 PM
Posted by:
J.Q. Public
Member Since:
Feb 4, 2008

Hey H1,

I just did a little quick research and math. Using your figures: "If you make over $2.87 million (do we have any of those taxpayers reading this?) you pay $542,882 more under Obama" then you've just raised a whopping $80 Billion in taxes. As a percentage of Federal Budget outlays for 2008 of $3 trillion dollars you've just taken in, are you ready for this???? You've just raised 2.7% of your budget outlays. If you add the trillion that Obama wants to add on to existing spending you drop that down to 2.0%. So, essentially, you've just raised a negligible amount of revenues relative to your expenses. But, hey, I guess as long as it makes you feel good to take their money I guess there's some value in that.

[JaneBlow]

J.Q., What H1 was referring to when he said "payroll taxes" is income tax that is deducted from your payroll checks. Everyone who has a job has to pay them. If you get a refund at tax time, it is a refund of the money you paid in. No one gets a refund of more than what they paid in.

So when you say, "40% of the people don't pay taxes, so therefore, Obama must be proposing to send them a check", what you really should say, is that 40% of taxpayers will get at least some of there taxes refunded under Obama's plan. A larger percent will pay less than they do now, but will not get a refund.

Obama's plan gives modest tax cuts to low and moderate income people, and tax hikes on the very wealthy. McCain's plan cuts taxes a little bit for the working class and a lot for the rich. If you disagree, please cite one reputable source that McCain's plan would not cut taxes for the wealthy.

Both Obama and McCain's tax plans would raise the national debt by trillions, but Obama is the only candidate that has proposed a spending cut as large as ending the war in Iraq.

As for your "quick research and math", your analysis is pointless. You have a problem with raising taxes on the wealthy because that alone won't balance the budget? You can't look at one piece of a plan in a vacuum and condemn it because it doesn't resolve all our problems. McCain has promised to balance the budget in his first term. I think you should be researching how he plans to do that.

Your assertion that Democrats demonize the wealthy is unfounded. We do so no more than Republicans demonize the working class.

Tax cuts increase the debt. The national debt is all of our debt. So giving tax cuts costs all of us. Get it?

We've covered who is to blame for the financial crisis already. There is plenty of blame to go around. Implying that a problem so complex could rest on the shoulders of only one party is inaccurate and unproductive.

It is interesting many economists are now blaming Alan Greenspan (appointed by Ronald Reagan). Apparently Greenspan is admitting some fault. He says he was wrong about deregulation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[J.Q. Citizen]

J.Q., What H1 was referring to when he said "payroll taxes" is income tax that is deducted from your payroll checks. Everyone who has a job has to pay them. If you get a refund at tax time, it is a refund of the money you paid in. No one gets a refund of more than what they paid in.

So when you say, "40% of the people don't pay taxes, so therefore, Obama must be proposing to send them a check", what you really should say, is that 40% of taxpayers will get at least some of there taxes refunded under Obama's plan. A larger percent will pay less than they do now, but will not get a refund.

Jane, I'll try to make this simple.
1. Payroll taxes by definition are for Social Security. 941 taxes. That is a given.
2. The other tax taken out is Withholding. That is for federal income taxes. Many people do not even have any money taken out or very little from each check. That is a given.
3. 40% of tax payers do not have an obligation for federal income taxes at the end of the year meaning that they already get 100% of the taxes that were withheld from them returned in the form of a refund. That is a given.
4. If they owe $0 then they cannot, by definition receive a refund. That is a given.
5. What is not clear but is easily projected logically is how Obama intends to follow through on his claim that he will give 95% of all American's a tax cut. There are two choices. Either he is lying or he is intending to give that "cut" in the form of a check. I guess there is another choice...he is too moronic to understand how our tax system works and he is simply wrong. So please, clarify for me, which one of those choices is the right one.

Next point. Of course some people get back more than they pay in. Check out the EIC.



Obama's plan gives modest tax cuts to low and moderate income people, and tax hikes on the very wealthy. McCain's plan cuts taxes a little bit for the working class and a lot for the rich. If you disagree, please cite one reputable source that McCain's plan would not cut taxes for the wealthy.

Quote from McCain: "I want to give ALL American's a tax cut"
Ummm, yeah, that includes wealthy people too.
Please cite one reputable source that he wants to give tax cuts ONLY to the wealthy or please agree to NEVER use that term again. I have way more justification for using terms like "Socialists" or "welfare" than anyone has for using that term.

Both Obama and McCain's tax plans would raise the national debt by trillions, but Obama is the only candidate that has proposed a spending cut as large as ending the war in Iraq.

Technically, wrong again Jane. Technically, if the commanders on the ground indicated...McCain could bring the troops home before the timeframe of Obama.

As for your "quick research and math", your analysis is pointless. You have a problem with raising taxes on the wealthy because that alone won't balance the budget? You can't look at one piece of a plan in a vacuum and condemn it because it doesn't resolve all our problems. McCain has promised to balance the budget in his first term. I think you should be researching how he plans to do that.

I have a problem with it because it is unfair and because it is feel good symbolism for people who hate people who are in a position that they themselves don't believe they will ever attain so they'd rather tear down the symbol than strive to attain a similar standing.

Your assertion that Democrats demonize the wealthy is unfounded. We do so no more than Republicans demonize the working class.

"Tax cuts for the wealthy" is demonization of the wealthy. I rest my particular case. Give me a reasonable example of how Republicans demonize the working class.

Tax cuts increase the debt. The national debt is all of our debt. So giving tax cuts costs all of us. Get it?

Male Bovine Excrement Jane. Excessive spending increases the debt. Tax cuts increase revenues to the treasury.

We've covered who is to blame for the financial crisis already. There is plenty of blame to go around. Implying that a problem so complex could rest on the shoulders of only one party is inaccurate and unproductive.

Why, it's what the Democratic Party leaders have attempted to do to the Republicans. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd need to go to jail. The people who committed crimes while allowing this to happen need to be punished. We absolutely need to affix blame. Complex? Yes. Untraceable? Absolutely not. Pointless? How do you fix it if you don't know the root cause?

It is interesting many economists are now blaming Alan Greenspan (appointed by Ronald Reagan). Apparently Greenspan is admitting some fault. He says he was wrong about deregulation. Please point to one single regulation or the lack thereof that contributed to this. It was an oversight issue, not a regulation issue.

We'll have to get into Greenspan another time. That is not exactly what he said though and it's not what he meant either. Greenspan is as capable of looking out for his own behind and future interests as is Colin Powell.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Below is a piece written by Charles Krauthammer that I believe sums up the situation fairly nicely.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe — neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) — yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.

Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.

McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association — with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the last year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign-policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts, but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis — indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign-policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Just a couple of follow up points Jane.

So when you say, "40% of the people don't pay taxes, so therefore, Obama must be proposing to send them a check", what you really should say, is that 40% of taxpayers will get at least some of there taxes refunded under Obama's plan. A larger percent will pay less than they do now, but will not get a refund.

I'm a little confused about this assertion so I'm going to try to break it down with examples:
If a person pays say $100/month for a year, based on the IRS tax tables and the way they filed their W-4 Form including deductions, they have paid in $1200 for the year. If the tax liability for their AGI is $0 [Correction here: original figure was $2000] then they receive a refund check for $1200 thus reducing their taxes paid [Correction here: original statement said "tax liability" instead of "taxes paid] to $0.
What you seem to be saying is that that same person might only have to have $50/month withheld for a total of $600. At the end of the year they would receive a refund check for $600 thus reducing their taxes paid [Correction here: original statement said "tax liability" instead of "taxes paid] to $0.
So, exactly where is the tax cut? If they want more money from each check and they don't want a huge refund check, all they have to do is modify their Form W-4 to increase the number of deductions for each check thus reducing the amount withheld. There is no way that that can be considered a tax cut. Over the period of a year, in each example, the total paid to the government is $0.



As for your "quick research and math", your analysis is pointless. You have a problem with raising taxes on the wealthy because that alone won't balance the budget? You can't look at one piece of a plan in a vacuum and condemn it because it doesn't resolve all our problems. McCain has promised to balance the budget in his first term. I think you should be researching how he plans to do that.

My analysis was far from pointless but I will grant you that I assumed that the implications would be obvious. I will expand upon the point. Keep in mind that we are only talking about those people making $2.8 million and above.
Obama's plan would remove $80 billion from the economy and put it in the hands of the government. McCain's plan would put an additional $43 billion directly into the economy without it ever going through the government. Now, I haven't thought this through to decide if this is a completely fair analysis but so far I don't see a flaw in the logic. I would submit that if you compare the two plans directly, I believe it's fair to say that relative to Obama's plan, McCain's plan actually puts $123 billion (80+43) directly into the economy. In other words, the $80 billion is returned to the economy and the $43 billion is added to the economy. Regardless of which figure you choose, I believe that having that money in the economy is much more productive than putting it in the hands of the government. For one thing, job creation would go up. The government does not create jobs, it simply contributes to the environment that either allows jobs to be created by the private sector or stifles the creation of jobs.

[JaneBlow]

Jane, I'll try to make this simple.
1. Payroll taxes by definition are for Social Security. 941 taxes. That is a given.
2. The other tax taken out is Withholding. That is for federal income taxes. Many people do not even have any money taken out or very little from each check. That is a given.
3. 40% of tax payers do not have an obligation for federal income taxes at the end of the year meaning that they already get 100% of the taxes that were withheld from them returned in the form of a refund. That is a given.
4. If they owe $0 then they cannot, by definition receive a refund. That is a given.
5. What is not clear but is easily projected logically is how Obama intends to follow through on his claim that he will give 95% of all American's a tax cut. There are two choices. Either he is lying or he is intending to give that "cut" in the form of a check. I guess there is another choice...he is too moronic to understand how our tax system works and he is simply wrong. So please, clarify for me, which one of those choices is the right one.

We are saying the same thing. I said, “40% of taxpayers will get at least some of their taxes refunded under Obama's plan.” Yes, they would receive this refund in the form of a check.

Next point. Of course some people get back more than they pay in. Check out the EIC.

The purpose of the Earned Income Credit is to reduce the amount of federal tax people below the poverty line have to pay. If they earn so little, that they qualify for an EIC that is more than the federal tax they owe, then, yes, they get a check for the difference. The reason it was created was to bring children out of poverty. It is responsible for lifting more children out of poverty than any other federal program (2.2 million in 2005).

“Studies have shown that the EITC generates large decreases in poverty and substantial increases in employment, as well as decreasing the number of single parents receiving cash welfare. It also produces a “multiplier effect”; it is estimated that every $1 paid out in the EITC generates $1.50–2.00 in local economic activity.” “Unlike other tax provisions, the EITC is supported by both progressives and conservatives because of its anti-poverty, incentive to work structure.” (http://www.results.org/website/article.asp?id=359)

Quote from McCain: "I want to give ALL American's a tax cut"
Ummm, yeah, that includes wealthy people too.
Please cite one reputable source that he wants to give tax cuts ONLY to the wealthy or please agree to NEVER use that term again. I have way more justification for using terms like "Socialists" or "welfare" than anyone has for using that term.

I never said that McCain wants to give tax cuts only to the wealthy. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said, “McCain's plan cuts taxes a little bit for the working class and a lot for the rich.”

Technically, wrong again Jane. Technically, if the commanders on the ground indicated...McCain could bring the troops home before the timeframe of Obama.

The commanders on the ground have one goal only – to leave in the best possible circumstances. That should be their goal. But the President has to look at the bigger picture. There are many other goals for the country and they are all interconnected. I can’t possibly explain this better than this article about a conversation between Obama and General Petraeus. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1853025,00.html

I have a problem with it because it is unfair and because it is feel good symbolism for people who hate people who are in a position that they themselves don't believe they will ever attain so they'd rather tear down the symbol than strive to attain a similar standing.

Again, I don’t hate rich people any more than you hate poor people. Stop saying I hate the rich because I believe a progressive tax system (which we have had all along) is fair. If you don’t like Progressive Taxation, argue the merits of an alternative system. You may also want to find a Presidential candidate that supports your preferred system while you’re at it.

"Tax cuts for the wealthy" is demonization of the wealthy. I rest my particular case. Give me a reasonable example of how Republicans demonize the working class.

Using the phrase, “tax cuts for the wealthy” is demonizing the wealthy? That is absurd. I didn’t accuse you of demonizing the working class. I just said if I’m demonizing the wealthy, than you are demonizing the working class.

Tax cuts increase revenues to the treasury.

I dispute this. Do you have any facts to support your position? If so, please cite your sources.

Why, it's what the Democratic Party leaders have attempted to do to the Republicans. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd need to go to jail. The people who committed crimes while allowing this to happen need to be punished. We absolutely need to affix blame. Complex? Yes. Untraceable? Absolutely not. Pointless? How do you fix it if you don't know the root cause?

I never said we shouldn’t try to find the cause and correct it. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said blaming one party for the problem is unproductive. Alan Greenspan’s admission of his role is very important (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin). We will be finding the causes for a while and hopefully, we will learn from the mistakes that were made.

[JaneBlow]

Below is a piece written by Charles Krauthammer that I believe sums up the situation fairly nicely.

The most important criteria of a VP is to be ready to assume the Presidency if needed. McCain picked someone who has no foreign policy experience, so it must not be that important to him.

By choosing Palin, McCain showed poor judgment and a willingness to put our country at risk.

[JaneBlow]

If a person pays say $100/month for a year, based on the IRS tax tables and the way they filed their W-4 Form including deductions, they have paid in $1200 for the year. If the tax liability for their AGI is $2000 then they receive a refund check for $1200 thus reducing their tax liability to $0.
What you seem to be saying is that that same person might only have to have $50/month withheld for a total of $600. At the end of the year they would receive a refund check for $600 thus reducing their tax liability to $0.
So, exactly where is the tax cut? If they want more money from each check and they don't want a huge refund check, all they have to do is modify their Form W-4 to increase the number of deductions for each check thus reducing the amount withheld. There is no way that that can be considered a tax cut. Over the period of a year, in each example, the total paid to the government is $0.

If a person pays $100/month for a year and their tax liability for the year is $2,000, they will owe an additional $800 at the end of the year. I’m not sure how you got that they would receive a refund of $1,200. If their tax liability was $1,200, they will owe $0 at the end of the year. But it’s not fair to say that because they owe $0 at the end of the year, that they don’t pay taxes. They do pay taxes. They paid $1,200. If their tax liability is less than what they paid, say $1,000, for example, they will get a $200 refund. This is not a $200 welfare check. This is their money. That’s all I’m saying.

But that’s not all. That same person also paid sales tax, state taxes, taxes on gas, cigarettes and alcohol, phone and utilities, etc. When you take all the taxes together, they represent a high percentage of a low-income person’s total earnings. In fact, depending on the state they live in, our country’s poorest pay nearly the same, the same, and sometimes even a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthiest. For example, in Washington D.C., a family of 3 earning $25,000, pays 11.1% of their income in combined taxes, while the same size family earning $150,000 pays only 8.7%. (http://cfo.dc.gov/cfo/frames.asp?doc=/cfo/lib/cfo/07study-final.pdf)

And the often wealthiest actually benefit more from the government programs than the poor.

“In terms of fairness, bigger money-makers generally make far greater use of the services government provides, from our subsidized financial system to our vast complex of commercial, property and patent laws to our federally-funded education, communications and transportation networks, once the envy of the world. Those with more property similarly benefit more from the protection of the legal system, while our oil companies and their investors gain far more from our military forces than do the rest of us. Why shouldn't those who benefit the most pay more for all they get?” (http://www.truthout.org/102408A)

Obama's plan would remove $80 billion from the economy and put it in the hands of the government. McCain's plan would put an additional $43 billion directly into the economy without it ever going through the government. Now, I haven't thought this through to decide if this is a completely fair analysis but so far I don't see a flaw in the logic. I would submit that if you compare the two plans directly, I believe it's fair to say that relative to Obama's plan, McCain's plan actually puts $123 billion (80+43) directly into the economy. In other words, the $80 billion is returned to the economy and the $43 billion is added to the economy.

First let me say, I have not researched your $80 billion and $43 billion, so the following is assuming those numbers are correct. Since you have admitted that you only get your news from FOX News and right-wing talk radio, I doubt it is accurate, but for the sake of argument, I’ll go along. I can see at least 2 problems with your logic. First, Obama would use the $80 billion for investing in the people (healthcare) and the economy (green jobs, etc.). So you can’t just act like he stuffs it in a mattress somewhere. Second, you can’t assume that the wealthy will create jobs with the money McCain let’s them keep. We know that CEO salaries are now something like 364 times that of the average worker.

“Many CEOs make more in a year than their employees will make in a lifetime. Last year, the average CEO of a major corporation earned $12.4 million, including salary, bonus and other compensation such as exercised stock options, according to Business Week's latest survey of executive pay. That's $34,000 a day including Saturdays and Sundays.” -- Forbes

The government does not create jobs, it simply contributes to the environment that either allows jobs to be created by the private sector or stifles the creation of jobs.

If I’m not mistaken, the government just saved the jobs of a ton of people that work in the financial industry. Also, according to the Department of Labor, “With more than 1.8 million civilian employees, the Federal Government, excluding the Postal Service is the Nation’s largest employer.” Also, Obama’s plan is to invest $150 billion over 10 years to catalyze private companies to provide clean energy.

[J.Q. Citizen]

If a person pays $100/month for a year and their tax liability for the year is $2,000, they will owe an additional $800 at the end of the year. I’m not sure how you got that they would receive a refund of $1,200. If their tax liability was $1,200, they will owe $0 at the end of the year. But it’s not fair to say that because they owe $0 at the end of the year, that they don’t pay taxes. They do pay taxes. They paid $1,200. If their tax liability is less than what they paid, say $1,000, for example, they will get a $200 refund. This is not a $200 welfare check. This is their money. That’s all I’m saying.

Yes, you're right Jane. I misspoke. In fact, my responses will be out of order because when you pointed out my mistake I wanted to clear it up. I was starting to go somewhere else with that, changed my mind and forgot to go back and clean it up. However, the only mistake I made was in saying that they had a tax liability at all. Maybe I should go back and correct that so it's not confusing to everyone else. The rest of my example, however is correct. The bottom line is that in each example they owe $0 in taxes at the end of the year. So, it doesn't matter if they had $1200 withheld throughout the year and got $1200 back or if $600 was withheld and the got $600 back. The net result is that they paid $0. If people fall into this category and they get the "tax cut" that Obama promises then they are getting back money that they did not pay in. That is essentially welfare.

But that’s not all. That same person also paid sales tax, state taxes, taxes on gas, cigarettes and alcohol, phone and utilities, etc. When you take all the taxes together, they represent a high percentage of a low-income person’s total earnings. In fact, depending on the state they live in, our country’s poorest pay nearly the same, the same, and sometimes even a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthiest. For example, in Washington D.C., a family of 3 earning $25,000, pays 11.1% of their income in combined taxes, while the same size family earning $150,000 pays only 8.7%. (http://cfo.dc.gov/cfo/frames.asp?doc=/cfo/lib/cfo/07study-final.pdf)

Ok, now you've proven that the government is in our hip pocket in numerous ways and you're supporting someone who wants to get in there even more. However, we were specifically talking about income taxes. Furthermore, some of those taxes could be reduced significantly by a change of lifestyle.

And the often wealthiest actually benefit more from the government programs than the poor.

“In terms of fairness, bigger money-makers generally make far greater use of the services government provides, from our subsidized financial system to our vast complex of commercial, property and patent laws to our federally-funded education, communications and transportation networks, once the envy of the world. Those with more property similarly benefit more from the protection of the legal system, while our oil companies and their investors gain far more from our military forces than do the rest of us. Why shouldn't those who benefit the most pay more for all they get?” (http://www.truthout.org/102408A)

Because, aside from being an incredibly lame argument, I have a tendency to not even attempt to waste my time on anything that comes from truthout.org and the like...just on general principles. The bottom line answer is...the Constitution makes no provisions for not providing for all Americans equally.

First let me say, I have not researched your $80 billion and $43 billion, so the following is assuming those numbers are correct. Since you have admitted that you only get your news from FOX News and right-wing talk radio, I doubt it is accurate, but for the sake of argument, I’ll go along.

Actually Jane, I listed a number of resources including the internet. But no particular sites because I Google the information I want and then find the websites with the information and see which ones agree unless it seems like a reliable source. In this case you have managed to actually achieve what you thought you had in the SC thread. Your insinuation is both insulting and demeaning. If you have some kind of proof that Fox News actually presents untrue numbers in its news reports then please provide verifiable and reliable truth. You use truthout.org as a reference and then have the gall to look down on Fox?? Give me a break. In the meantime try looking at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html find the part that says that the portion of the population making over $2.81 million dollars is approximately 147,000 people. However, as it turns out, you're right. You may have noticed that with few exceptions, I seldom cut and past from other peoples work. In this case, I made the mistake of trusting the numbers of H1 ws 13 for the amounts of the cuts for each candidate and only used the Washington Post as a reference for the number of people affected. My point is, the only reason the math is wrong is because I got it from one of your liberal cohorts on this website. The actual numbers are Obama: $103 Billion and McCain: $40 billion.

I can see at least 2 problems with your logic. First, Obama would use the $80 billion for investing in the people (healthcare) and the economy (green jobs, etc.). So you can’t just act like he stuffs it in a mattress somewhere. Second, you can’t assume that the wealthy will create jobs with the money McCain let’s them keep. We know that CEO salaries are now something like 364 times that of the average worker.

Health care is an expense, not an investment. Investments have a monetary return. Oh really?? Exactly what green jobs is the government going to create? Jeez...again with the class envy. It's a fact Jane, the wealthy create jobs by one means or the other. Who cares how much more the average CEO makes than the average worker? Tell you what, you come up with what you think is a reasonable figure for an average CEO. Reduce their salary to that amount and then take the difference and distribute it amongst all of the employees and see how much they wind up getting. Second, those people buy things...lots of things. THAT creates jobs too. Yachts don't build themselves ya know.

“Many CEOs make more in a year than their employees will make in a lifetime. Last year, the average CEO of a major corporation earned $12.4 million, including salary, bonus and other compensation such as exercised stock options, according to Business Week's latest survey of executive pay. That's $34,000 a day including Saturdays and Sundays.” -- Forbes

Not only do I not care, it's really none of our business and it's irrelevant to this conversation. Are you suggesting that the government should put a cap on how much someone in private industry can make?


If I’m not mistaken, the government just saved the jobs of a ton of people that work in the financial industry. Also, according to the Department of Labor, “With more than 1.8 million civilian employees, the Federal Government, excluding the Postal Service is the Nation’s largest employer.” Also, Obama’s plan is to invest $150 billion over 10 years to catalyze private companies to provide clean energy.
[/QUOTE]
So now a saved job is a created job? And I sure hope that the point of that stupid bailout was to preserve the economy and the job saving was incidental. Are you seriously advocating that we all go to work for the government Jane? Or are you simply trying to help me prove my point that the federal government is already incredibly bloated and Obama is going to make it worse? You know all those rich people you want to rob because they're evil and take advantage of the workers? Take a look at Bill Gates...not one of my favorite people but lets use him for an example. Microsoft has generated literally tens of thousands of jobs if you look at all of the business that have sprung up to fill needs of Microsoft. Many of those businesses are small businesses which, collectively, employee more people than even your hero big government. If you start removing the money from the power players then less money flows down to the ancillary businesses. You think the economy is bad now...go ahead, raise taxes on anyone right now.

It's late, I'm tired, I'll answer the rest of your posts later.

Do you think it would be a good idea to go back and correct my original statements about tax liabilities?

Hope this is good because I'm not previewing it.

Yes, I've cooled down but I really do not thing your assumption was even remotely fair.

[J.Q. Citizen]

We are saying the same thing. I said, “40% of taxpayers will get at least some of their taxes refunded under Obama's plan.” Yes, they would receive this refund in the form of a check.

We are not saying the same thing. Please re-read my points 3 and 4. 40% of Americans already do not have an income tax liability at the end of the year. And the bottom 50% combined pay less than 3%.

The purpose of the Earned Income Credit is to reduce the amount of federal tax people below the poverty line have to pay. If they earn so little, that they qualify for an EIC that is more than the federal tax they owe, then, yes, they get a check for the difference. The reason it was created was to bring children out of poverty. It is responsible for lifting more children out of poverty than any other federal program (2.2 million in 2005).

“Studies have shown that the EITC generates large decreases in poverty and substantial increases in employment, as well as decreasing the number of single parents receiving cash welfare. It also produces a “multiplier effect”; it is estimated that every $1 paid out in the EITC generates $1.50–2.00 in local economic activity.” “Unlike other tax provisions, the EITC is supported by both progressives and conservatives because of its anti-poverty, incentive to work structure.” (http://www.results.org/website/article.asp?id=359)

Regardless of the reason for the program, you ignored my point which to rebut your assertion that No one gets a refund of more than what they paid in.
So, obviously, they do get more than they paid in and I believe that this can easily be considered a form of welfare. Furthermore, I don't believe the EIC applies only to families with children.

I never said that McCain wants to give tax cuts only to the wealthy. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said, “McCain's plan cuts taxes a little bit for the working class and a lot for the rich.”
Jane, you have, more than once I believe, used the phrase "tax cuts for the wealthy". It is strongly implied in that phrase that the tax cuts are only for the wealthy. I don't believe that until now, you have ever qualified it in the way you have now. My point is that the phrase is misleading and should NEVER be used.


The commanders on the ground have one goal only – to leave in the best possible circumstances. That should be their goal. But the President has to look at the bigger picture. There are many other goals for the country and they are all interconnected. I can’t possibly explain this better than this article about a conversation between Obama and General Petraeus. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1853025,00.html

Unfortunately, for some reason that link causes my browser to crash so I will have to read that after I restart my computer. If I read anything that makes me change my mind, I'll get back to you. Regardless, I don't believe we should leave until we have achieved a recognizable victory, which, in my mind, at the very least is the successful handover of security issues to the Iraqi's and in such a was as the enemy cannot possibly conceive of our withdrawal as a success for them.

Again, I don’t hate rich people any more than you hate poor people. Stop saying I hate the rich because I believe a progressive tax system (which we have had all along) is fair. If you don’t like Progressive Taxation, argue the merits of an alternative system. You may also want to find a Presidential candidate that supports your preferred system while you’re at it.

But it IS inherently unfair. I understand that it's what we've had all along. It's been unfair all along. The so-called "Fair" and "Flat" taxes would both be infinitely more fair. I understand that it's now ingrained in our minds as being the norm and hence acceptable but it is no more right and fair than Affirmative Action or Minimum Wage. There is a whole industry devoted to our currently bloated and unfair tax laws. Ummm, Jane, just because it is inherently unfair and there is no candidate that is running on that platform...why would I support making it more unfair?

Using the phrase, “tax cuts for the wealthy” is demonizing the wealthy? That is absurd. I didn’t accuse you of demonizing the working class. I just said if I’m demonizing the wealthy, than you are demonizing the working class.

As I said above, there is an inherent implication in the phrase as well as and apparent inaccuracy. It's very intent is to portray a specific and inaccurate picture that anyone who is less informed than we could easily construe as including the word "only" within it. It is as pathetic an attempt by Democrats to portray Republicans in a bad light as when they call a reduction in the amount of planned increase in a government program a "cut" to that program.

I dispute this. Do you have any facts to support your position? If so, please cite your sources.

Dispute it all you want Jane. It's a known fact by people who are willing to look at these things objectively. I still listen to financial adviser shows put on by non-partisan people who's sole job it is to make their clients money. (What can I say...a holdover from the days I actually had some money.) They all say the same thing when tax cuts are discussed. But here's a link for ya. http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676

I never said we shouldn’t try to find the cause and correct it. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said blaming one party for the problem is unproductive. Alan Greenspan’s admission of his role is very important (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin). We will be finding the causes for a while and hopefully, we will learn from the mistakes that were made.
Well, you never said those words so I guess I just expanded but it seemed implicit in your statement and your willingness to leave it at that. I believe it is productive because I believe that it is primarily through the philosophies and policies of the Democratic party that have gotten us to this point and I think people should know that. And to make this relative to the upcoming election...the last time the Democrats were close to being as powerful as it's possible for them now was during the Carter administration which gave us the CRA.
Again, I can't use a link to go to another website right now but what you seem to be saying is that we should take the word of the person that is now admitting that he contributed to some of the mistakes that have gotten us to where we are now. This makes as much sense to me as allowing Frank or Dodd to lead the investigation as to what happened to the housing and financing industries.

[J.Q. Citizen]

The most important criteria of a VP is to be ready to assume the Presidency if needed. McCain picked someone who has no foreign policy experience, so it must not be that important to him.

By choosing Palin, McCain showed poor judgment and a willingness to put our country at risk.

And Obama chose a nice guy who's a total mucking foron that appears to try to undermine the campaign every chance he gets. Say it ain't so Joe has been wrong on numerous foreign policy issues but 2 in particular. He opposed virtually all of Reagan's policies that eventually led to the defeat of the USSR and he opposed the First Gulf War. Oh, and then he wanted to unilaterally divide Iraq into three countries. This guy is not fit for the position he holds much less the Presidency for which he unsuccessfully ran.

I will say again, you have your opinion and I have mine. I believe Palin is more qualified to be President than Obama.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Just a couple of follow up points to this one Jane:


But that’s not all. That same person also paid sales tax, state taxes, taxes on gas, cigarettes and alcohol, phone and utilities, etc. When you take all the taxes together, they represent a high percentage of a low-income person’s total earnings. In fact, depending on the state they live in, our country’s poorest pay nearly the same, the same, and sometimes even a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthiest. For example, in Washington D.C., a family of 3 earning $25,000, pays 11.1% of their income in combined taxes, while the same size family earning $150,000 pays only 8.7%. (http://cfo.dc.gov/cfo/frames.asp?doc=/cfo/lib/cfo/07study-final.pdf)
Here we go again with the lies, darned lies and statistics. There is a reason for this apparent disparity. There is a floor to the poverty level. That floor is zero(0). There is no ceiling on wealth. Are you arguing the Socialists argument that there should be? If there is no ceiling on wealth then that means, unless they spend an incredible amount of money, they will never come close to the same percentage of income relative to taxes as those with little money. If the wealthy only spent as much on daily living as do the bottom 50% then your meaningless figures would become even more minuscule. However, the fact that their percentage of taxes paid is as high as it is is a testament to how much they do spend. It is that spending, among other things, that contributes so much to our economy. Wealthy home builders build homes which creates jobs. Wealthy people RISK their money in ventures that may or may not produce a profit but when it does produce a profit, it creates jobs. If it does not make a profit, they essentially lose their money. It is RISK and INVESTMENT that drives our economy. You know Jane, this, and some of your other arguments you've made in other posts give me the very strong impression that it is your goal to "level things out" or redistribute the wealth.

“Many CEOs make more in a year than their employees will make in a lifetime. Last year, the average CEO of a major corporation earned $12.4 million, including salary, bonus and other compensation such as exercised stock options, according to Business Week's latest survey of executive pay. That's $34,000 a day including Saturdays and Sundays.” -- Forbes

I'm coming back to this one because it is, I believe critical. It is none of our business or that of government to determine how much someone in private industry can make. If YOU come up with some brilliant idea that turns out to be something people just can't live with...light bulb, microwave, automobile come to mind...then why should you ever be limited by our government or society as to how much you can earn from that? I'm not arguing against any taxes...just not the punitive ones we have now that stifle growth and productivity. It is YOUR idea and it is YOUR money. You shouldn't legally owe anyone a higher percentage of your income simply because you had the opportunity and you succeeded. If you choose to contribute more in any fashion, great, but that should be your own personal decision.

[J.Q. Citizen]

The commanders on the ground have one goal only – to leave in the best possible circumstances. That should be their goal. But the President has to look at the bigger picture. There are many other goals for the country and they are all interconnected. I can’t possibly explain this better than this article about a conversation between Obama and General Petraeus. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1853025,00.html

Ok, I read it. Such a sweet review by the author. I can't help but wonder who Time endorses. So, you're saying that because Paraeus didn't name Obama the flower of the day (blooming idiot) to his face that he is endorsing Obama's timetable? Give me a break...he was gracious to a candidate. Besides, having a "flexible timetable" could be exactly the equivalent of what McCain decides as far as withdrawal when it's all said and done.

[JaneBlow]

J.Q.,

Are there any specific McCain policies that differ from the policies of George W. Bush?

Jane

[J.Q. Citizen]

J.Q.,

Are there any specific McCain policies that differ from the policies of George W. Bush?

Jane

Yes, McCain wants to significantly reduce spending. Don't know how easy that would be if the Congress gets a Super Majority but that's a big difference.

Granted, we had 9/11 and the war but I think Bush could have done a better job of reducing spending.

[J.Q. Citizen]

J.Q.,

Are there any specific McCain policies that differ from the policies of George W. Bush?

Jane

Maybe an even better question is how different McCain's ideas on the policies are different from Obama's.

Listen to this and tell me what you think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

[J.Q. Citizen]

Hey Jane,

I figured out how to determine who is getting what tax breaks but I couldn't find any specific figures.

If you can, find the following information, I would appreciate it and I think it would answer the question.

For McCain:

By what PERCENTAGE does McCain plan to reduce taxes on each income group.

For Obama:

By what PERCENTAGE did Bush reduce taxes on each income group.
By what PERCENTAGE does Obama plan to increase or reduce taxes on each income group.
Add the two together.
Compare the results for each group with that of McCain.


I don't even know the end results but I'm willing to bet that the higher income groups got a lower percentage cut in their taxes than did the middle class.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Well guess what Jane. I found the information and it looks like, based on the strict context that I gave, that McCain will only be giving tax cuts to the wealthy. Well, technically, according to the stated platform of each, McCain will keep the existing taxes where they are and Obama would only raise taxes on the top two rates. So, if you look at not increasing taxes as a tax cut then McCain is giving a cut to the wealthy. I personally believe that that's an improper way to view it but given the context of the challenge I issued and assuming that you actually believe Obama's promises then I'll give you this one. Fair enough?

Although, now that I think about it, if that's the case, how is Obama claiming to give tax cuts to the lower classes? I sense more research coming on. Oh, and I would also say that your previous assertions about tax cuts favoring the wealthy are dead wrong. Based on percentages, they have consistently received a much lower cut than the majority of other income brackets.