Jackson Free Press

Mr. Keep-Trickling-Down-From-the-Rich McCain is calling middle-class tax cuts "welfare"! Does he truly think that the only real "tax cuts" are those for the very wealthy?!? Dallas Morning News:

"When politicians talk about taking your money and spreading it around, you'd better hold on to your wallet," Mr. McCain told a raucous crowd in Miami, where he debuted the tougher rhetoric. "His plan gives away your tax dollars to those who don't pay taxes. That's not a tax cut, that's welfare."

The Obama campaign said "John McCain again distorted Senator Obama's tax proposal," misrepresenting the tax relief Mr. Obama wants to give middle-class Americans.

Previous Comments

ID

139346

Comment

Here's Obama's response, excerpted from his speech today in Missouri: My opponent's been talking a lot about taxes in his campaign. But here's the truth Missouri – we are both offering tax cuts. The difference is who we're cutting taxes for. It comes down to values – in America, do we simply value wealth, or do we value the work that creates it? For eight years, we've seen what happens when we put the extremely wealthy and well-connected ahead of working people. Now, John McCain thinks that the way to rebuild this economy is to double down on George Bush's policy of giving more and more tax breaks to those at the very top in the false hope that it will all trickle down. I think it's time to rebuild the middle class in this country, and that is the choice in this election. Senator McCain wants to give the average Fortune 500 CEO a $700,000 tax cut but absolutely nothing at all to over 100 million Americans. I want to cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95 percent of all workers. And under my plan, if you make less than $250,000 a year – which includes 98 percent of small business owners – you won't see your taxes increase one single dime. Not your payroll taxes, not your income taxes, not your capital gains taxes – nothing. It' time to give the middle class a break, and that's what I'll do as President of the United States. Lately, Senator McCain has been attacking my middle class tax cut. He actually said it goes to, "those who don't pay taxes," even though it only goes to working people who are already getting taxed on their paycheck. That's right, Missouri – John McCain is so out of touch with the struggles you are facing that he must be the first politician in history to call a tax cut for working people "welfare." The only "welfare" in this campaign is John McCain's plan to give another $200 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest corporations in America – including $4 billion in tax breaks to big oil companies that ran up record profits under George Bush. That's who John McCain is fighting for. But we can't afford four more years like the last eight. George Bush and John McCain are out of ideas, they are out of touch, and if you stand with me in 17 days they will be out of time. We need new priorities in Washington. I think it's time to give a tax cut to the teachers and janitors who work in our schools; to the cops and firefighters who keep us safe; to the waitresses working double shifts, the nurses in the ER, and the plumbers fighting for their American Dream. These workers are the backbone of our country. They are the ones that Washington has forgotten. They're the ones I'll fight for. And while Senator McCain ignores the payroll taxes you pay to score a few political points, I'll put a tax cut into the pockets of working people so you can pay the bills, put away some savings, and pass on a brighter future to your children.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-10-18T12:03:03-06:00

ID

139375

Comment

They're running out of options it seems since the Revern Wright thing has failed them, casting him against his white grandmother has failed them, the welfare argument has failed them, the raising tax argument is failing them, the lack of experience argument is failing them and redisribution of wealth is failing them. Ain't much left but to talk about his big nose, racial status (I forgot that's been done), hidden tendency to steal and his obvious propensity to commit crimes although he has failed to commit any we know of and has failed cuss out or denigrate Palin that is so rightfully deserved as turn around is fair play.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-10-20T10:35:33-06:00

ID

139394

Comment

I wonder what McCain calls this second stimulus packagage Bush and the republicans are proposing? Does he not call this welfare or socialism too? The welfare or socialism argument just doesn't hold water any more. The repugs need to shut up and go away for about 50 years.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-10-20T13:35:57-06:00

ID

139429

Comment

This is what Joe Klein of Time just said about McCain's mud-flinging and red-baiting this weekend—and how he's making no sense on the topic of the economy: 1. He attacks Obama for increasing "welfare" by providing refundable tax credits--that is giving people the cash equivalent if they don't pay enough in income taxes to reap the full benefit of the credit--but McCain's own $5000 health insurance credit is also refundable. 2. He attacks Obama for spreading "socialism," but McCain supported the bailout that enabled the Bush Administration to partially nationalize the banking system last week. If that ain't a (very mild) form of socialism, I don't know what is. 3. He attacks Obama's tax plan as a form of "spreading the wealth"--the words Obama used when talking to Joe the Unlicensed Tax Dodger in Ohio--because Obama would reduce taxes on the middle class and pay for it by restoring Clinton-era marginal tax rates on the wealthy. And yet, McCain proudly voted for a major tax hike and wealth redistribution scheme in his early days in his early days in Congress. In fact he touts it regularly, including on Fox News Sunday, as bipartisan cooperation at its finest: "Ronald Reagan's agenda was very different from that of Tip O'Neill's. Yet Ronald Reagan and Tip O'NEILL sat down together across the table and sat down and worked out a way to save Social Security for quite a period of time." In fact, that was an enormous--and necessary--tax increase, but it tilted heavily against working Americans. Payroll taxes have been increased no fewer than seven times since Reagan was President and, so far as I know, never been cut--but large capital gains and marginal rate cuts, and all sorts of corporate loopholes, have been built into the tax system during that same period--a massive redistribution of wealth toward the wealthy.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-10-20T17:50:28-06:00

ID

139443

Comment

The US will default on it's debt and the dollar will implode by summer of 2009, leaving us all impoverished according to two investment newsletters I get from Europe. Links below. http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-28-is-available!-Global-systemic-crisis-Alert-Summer-2009-The-US-government-defaults-on-its-debt_a2250.html http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article6866.html

Author

HardTravelin

Date

2008-10-20T21:48:17-06:00

ID

139444

Comment

Not saying it can't happen, but I never buy into doomsday scenarios.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2008-10-20T22:37:26-06:00

ID

139448

Comment

Not saying it can't happen, but I never buy into doomsday scenarios. posted by golden eagle on 10/21/08 at 04:37 AM My pension fund lost 44% of it's worth just the first week of October; the dollar has been going over the cliff for some time now (it's up to $133.26 to the euro today); the government gave $850 billion taxpayers $ to Wall St; several states, including California, are on the verge of bankruptcy; the nation of Iceland has had a total financial meltdown; all of europe, beginning with Ireland, nationalized their banks to some extent last week...dooomsday is here bro, wake up. I want all the info I can get as I don't enjoy homeless and hungry very much.

Author

HardTravelin

Date

2008-10-20T23:42:39-06:00

ID

139454

Comment

A VERY signifigant event that not very many are talking about is there is a bubbling revolt against the dollar. Currently, the dollar is the WORLD's currency --- this is why barrels of oil are universally valued in U.S. dollars. If the major nations, ignoring a defanged U.S., get together and move the world's financial system away from being centered on U.S. dollars that would put downward pressure on the U.S. dollar. This may seem ironic, but the Chinese are so dependent on our economy (so they can sell us trinkets like we sold the native Americans) that they will continue to buy our bonds to keep us from collapsing! The oil states don't want to see us go down too far either because if you are a drug dealer or oil pimp you don't make any money if the tricks don't have any money to spend. I am betting that these players will act in their own perverse self interest to keep us floating, but the days of America as John Wayne telling folks to "get off our planet by sundown" appear to be over. Alas, woe is us, but we have ourselves to blame for being a nation with its head in the sand of fifty years ago.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-10-21T08:18:31-06:00

ID

139456

Comment

Excellent point Whitley. Saddam Hussein was about to stop denominating Iraq's oil sales in US dollars. Iran has been threatening to and even set up' their own oil bourse. China has said they're moving to a currency market basket instead of relying on the dollar, Venezuela is moving away from the dollar as reserve currency, anD Russia has moved to the ruble and euro for natural gas transactions.

Author

HardTravelin

Date

2008-10-21T08:27:38-06:00

ID

139457

Comment

Here's a WSJ opinion piece on Obama's tax plan that is interesting. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455061443852529.html

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-10-21T08:41:29-06:00

ID

139458

Comment

BubbaT: What do you find interesting about it?

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2008-10-21T09:05:23-06:00

ID

139465

Comment

The bottom line is simple: the money for relief for those under 250K is obtained by rolling back the tax cuts that were foolishly given to the wealthy during war time. In a time of war, shouldn't we put country first? Or is it tax cuts for the well to do first? The article talks about "Obama magic"; however, I have always found the real "right wing magic" is in how the far right fringe manages to get lower income people like Sam the Handyman (and maybe Bubba) so worked up about the wealthy paying the same share of taxes that they paid under Ronald Reagan. I doubt Reagan was a socialist or Anti-American.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-10-21T09:45:50-06:00

ID

139480

Comment

The Tax Foundation has an article that says McCain's and Obama's tax plans are both going to raise taxes on middle income families. Obama and McCain Tax Proposals Raise Marginal Tax Rates for Many Middle-Income Taxpayers Marginal Rates Would Shoot over 50 Percent for Some Middle-Income Families Under Obama's Plan Washington, D.C., October 7, 2008 - Marginal tax rates will rise to over 50 percent on some middle-income families if Sen. Obama's tax plan becomes law, and over 40 percent under Senator McCain's plan, according to a new report from the Tax Foundation. The report is Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 150, "How Do the Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans Affect Taxpayers' Marginal Tax Rates?" by Robert Carroll, Ph.D., vice president for economic policy at the foundation. Carroll illustrates his point with a family of four—two working adults with two children—and explains the economic importance of "marginal" tax rates and why they can differ dramatically from statutory tax rates. "Senator Obama's new and expanded tax credits for low-income taxpayers will certainly cut taxes for low-income people," explains Carroll, "but the credits are mostly recaptured from middle-income taxpayers. During this phase-out range, marginal tax rates shoot up, causing economically damaging side effects. As a result, for example, a family of four in the $30,000-to-$43,000 range would discover that for every additional dollar they earn, they pay more than 50 cents in income tax." The marginal tax rate is important because it determines how much of his income a taxpayer keeps when making financial decisions such as how much to work, save or donate. The higher the marginal tax rate, the more likely it is that these important decisions will be based on tax considerations rather than economic merit. Sen. McCain's tax plan also changes marginal tax rates by proposing to replace the tax exclusion for employer-provided insurance with a new health tax credit. Although taxpayers would pay less in total, the marginal tax rate would rise in some income ranges. "Between $15,000 and $20,000, and between $90,000 and $110,000, some families would be bumped up into a higher tax bracket," said Carroll. The Tax Foundation is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that has monitored fiscal policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937 http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/23727.html Whitley- when Reagan took office in 1980 the marginal tax rate on people making $215,400+ was 70%!! nobody should have to pay that much of their income in taxes. When he left office in 1988 the marginal tax rate was 28% on $149,000+ it's 33% for $250,000 for 2008. I sure those making 250k would love to go back to Reagans last tax rates. http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/federalindividualratehistory-20080107.pdf

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-10-21T12:23:04-06:00

ID

139481

Comment

I'm convinced that neither candidate can tell us specifically or exactly how their tax plan will affect us specifically. There is an unknown margin of error in both plans that I don't expect either candidate or their exectioners to appreciate yet. I'm still going with Obama on so many other factors. Taxes are only one aspect of the candidate overall presentation.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-10-21T12:47:25-06:00

ID

139482

Comment

Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner in economics debunks tax foundation's biased : http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/the-greek-menace/?scp=5&sq=tax%20foundation&st=cse Tax Foundation's calculations found to be misleading: http://www.cbpp.org/5-10-99tax2.htm Tax Foundation admits it's own figures are exaggerated: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE0D9143AF937A25751C0A96F958260&&scp=8&sq=tax%20foundation&st=cse

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-10-21T12:50:21-06:00

ID

139483

Comment

I like Krugman. I even read his book called "The Conscience of a Liberal," I think it's called. Made me proud to be a part-time liberal.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-10-21T13:09:16-06:00

ID

139484

Comment

Whitley- when Reagan took office in 1980 the marginal tax rate on people making $215,400+ was 70%!! nobody should have to pay that much of their income in taxes. Fortunately, nobody is arguing for that. Obama is arguing for a 3 point increase on the highest two levels, returning us to Clinton-era marginal rates. It's important to note that "marginal tax rate" means the rate for taxing your *last* dollar, not your first dollar. So if you make $215,500 under the Reagan-era tax code, you're looking at paying 70% on $100. Also, Reagan's first drop was from 70% to 50% and, at the time, there was a massive capital gains exclusion. Together, that really didn't make sense, because it taxed high earners while excluding a lot of "wealth" earners who did little for their dividends and stock sales. What was worse was that under this initial tax bill of 1981, Federal revenues fell. So, the 1986 plan revamped the code dramatically. When he left office in 1988 the marginal tax rate was 28% on $149,000+ it's 33% for $250,000 for 2008. Along with the drop in 1986 to 28 percent, the capital gains exclusion was repealed, the investment tax credit was repealed, non-business interest (on credit cards, non-mortgage loans) was no long tax exempt, the second-earner deduction was repealed, passive losses were limited and the sales tax exemption for individuals was repealed. It also greatly expanded the use of the alternative minimum tax. Why was all this done? Because high earners were sheltering their money in tons of crazy ways (remember how big "tax shelters" were back in those 1980s movies) and effectively paying very little tax, 50 percent bracket be damned. The upshot was that the 1986 bill was relatively revenue neutral, even adding some revenue to the coffers of the Federal guvment, while streamlining an insane tax code that had a massive statutory rate (left over from WWII, really) but that, in practice, was taxing people at a much lower level. The 1986 simplification of the tax code, incidentally, although often called a "Reagan" tax cut, was officially sponsored by Democrats Dick Gephardt in the House and Bill Bradley in the Senate.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2008-10-21T13:58:08-06:00

ID

139620

Comment

Gail Collins reports that: In order to pursue that goal as efficiently as possible, Hayes then announced that SO, if you don't agree with THEIR politics, THEN you don't believe in God and hate America. This is why some decent Republicans like Colin Powell are running away from these wingnuts. What decent person would be associated with facist pigs?

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-10-24T09:52:17-06:00