Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Rounds Out His Tax Plan

By Jonathan Weisman
With John McCain attacking him as a tax raiser, Sen. Barack Obama tied off the loose ends of his tax policies today, saying he would set the tax rates paid on most dividends and capital gains at 20 percent, substantially below where they stood during most of President Clinton's presidency and lower than most Republicans expected.

He also clarified that that a proposal to impose Social Security taxes on incomes over $250,000 would not start until at least a decade from now.

The new details of the Obama tax plan are not new policies but are clarifications on vague statements from the senator from Illinois in the past. Obama has said for some time that he would raise dividends and capital gains tax rates from the 15-percent level reached in President Bush's 2003 tax cuts, but he put the range somewhere between 20 percent and 28 percent. In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today, Obama aides and advisers picked the lowest point in that range -- a decision made as McCain pummels Obama as a tax hiker with a barrage of ads running during the Olympics.

For much of the the 1990s, most capital gains were taxed at 28 percent. The balanced budget agreement reached between Clinton and Republican congressional leaders in 1997 brought that rate to 20 percent. Bush and the Republicans then lowered it to 15 percent in 2003.

Until that year, dividends from stocks and other investments were taxed as ordinary income, as well. And since most of that income went to the affluent, dividends were taxed at higher rates -- as high as 39.6 percent under Clinton. Bush slashed that rate to 15 percent in 2003, one of the most dramatic changes to tax policy of his presidency.

By choosing a 20 percent tax, Obama is bringing tax rates on investments up to a mid-way point for families earning more than $250,000. Families below that level would continue paying the existing 15 percent rate. Obama economic aides Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee noted that a 20 percent capital gains rate is well below the level set by Ronald Reagan in 1986. And Bush didn't even think to lower the rate on dividends in his first round of tax cuts.

"The idea that a return to the tax policies of the 1990s would harm the economy is supported by neither theory nor evidence nor the longer-term history," said Lawrence Summers, a Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration and a key architect of Clinton's economic policies.

But in seeking middle ground, Obama may be undercutting his claims that he is willing to ask Americans to sacrifice in difficult times. Obama's tax plan would raise income tax and investment tax levels for families earning more than $250,000, but overall, it would actually cost the Treasury money at a time when budget deficits are approaching a half trillion dollars.

Furman noted that inflation numbers released this morning indicate that rising consumer prices this year alone have wiped out the small gains in income that families have made over the last 10 years.

"In an environment like that, families are really hurting," he said, adding that Obama's tax plan is "part of an effort to relieve the squeeze on middle class families."

By Web Politics Editor  |  August 14, 2008; 3:22 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama , Interview , On the Issues  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Tops in Donations from Troops
Next: The New ABB is Anybody but Bayh

Comments

The fairest thing to do would be to tax all types of income including dividends and capital gains as ordinary income and to the bring the rates down. If more revenue is needed that can be done by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions.

The current system is bad because many people always feel that the sharpies who know the tax code or who hire those who do are paying less than those who make a similar income but who are not insiders. A lot of good will to the tax system would be restored if people felt that those who were similarly situated were being treated equally.

Posted by: danielhancock | August 15, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Average Joe: "The wealthiest country in the world and we have a infrastructure, an education system and a health care system that are the worst of any industrialized nation and ranks behind some third world countries."

Please provide data and examples.

Posted by: Tammy | August 14, 2008 11:54 PM
*********

Tammy ---> GOOGLE IT!

You seem bright enough, google the answer and stop asking folks to spoon feed you information. Go seek it yourself. Its well known tha the US education and healthcare systems lag WAY behind other industrialized nations.

Do us a favor and use the interwebz, after all that is why Al Gore invented it.

Posted by: JakeD | August 15, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

6Obamas tax proposal:

On the one hand we have a very tepid tax proposal- that is not going into effect much of anything for 10 years.
So that’s a joke?
Nothing here other than there is no increase in this for the 30m, 50m, 100m 150m, 200 m brackets as lying McCain and his piggy lying minions have been shrieking about.
Oh yes the class warfare group again- I'm thinking these people are truly despicable moral abortions.
I had 3 years in my life where I made around a million: I didn’t cry in my Martini. Poor little piggish incompetent I didn’t buy myself expensive ostentatious toys- I paid for my kids education-including Law School-where I asked them to use what they learned to help others- noncoporate law jobs, non ambulance chaser jobs, so far so good, they do public interests both earning way less than 100m a year. And they both graduated high in their classes in top 10-law schools.
Poor little Rush Limbaugh, George Bush, sad little Shawn Hennity- that poser “Great American’ the other Bushes, pathetic Carl Rove: detestations to you and all the future generations of all of you and their heir liters until the end of time- generations forward, I don’t share one tear for you- If I would shed millions and if it would eventuate the selective drowning of you and yours like panicked rats.
Yes, I have an anger management issue with the meanest scum of the earth, I apologize for not being more civil- but these guys don’t deserve it. One

Posted by: lexlumina | August 15, 2008 6:25 AM | Report abuse

For some reason you cannot copy and submit stuff if you use for quotation marks the symbol
---------------------------
Maybe if I postpone this comment for ten years it will be better.

Deferring problems into the future is not change. It is already done enough in Washington.

Posted by: danielhancock | August 15, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

"He (Obama) also clarified that that a proposal to impose Social Security taxes on incomes over $250,000 would not start until at least a decade from now"
-------------------------------
This is the kind of byzantine tax stuff that drives people nuts. If raising the cap is a bad idea then waiting ten years to do it is not going make it any better.

If it is a good idea then why wait ten years?

It seems like the Obama campaign is just making things up on the fly.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

>
-------------------------------
This is the kind of byzantine tax stuff that drives people nuts. If raising the cap is a bad idea then waiting ten years to do it is not going make it any better.

If it is a good idea then why wait ten years?

It seems like the Obama campaign is just making things up on the fly.

Posted by: danielhancock | August 15, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

>

This is the kind of byzantine tax stuff that drives people nuts. If raising the cap is a bad idea then waiting ten years to do it is not going make it any better.

If it is a good idea then why wait ten years?

It seems like the Obama campaign is just making things up on the fly.

Posted by: danielhancock | August 15, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

The rights argument is that if you provide the tax cuts to rich they would invest and that will improve the economy put money everyones pockets, but you have to wonder in whose economy and in whose pockets. The moment they have their money, it their savings they can determine whether to spend it or invest in Russia, Iraq, Iran, India or China where return on their investment is much higher. While we middle class people fight among ourselves debating whose ideology is superior or more righteous. The right argues that this capitalism and we are capitalist country and everything is determined by the market. Then why do we have so many lobbying firms trying to push their agenda, if we are capitalistic society then we should act like one. We have been saying its OK to bail out the banks. Its OK to pass a law so that we cannot buy our medicines where they are available at lower cost. Where as companies can hire people in other countries as labor is cheap over there. Its farce to consider ourselves to be practicing capitalism. Any form of ideology when it pure, it has perfect results as long as we taint it with our greed whether it be socialism or capitalism it is bound to fail!

Posted by: Ravi | August 15, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

Average Joe: "The wealthiest country in the world and we have a infrastructure, an education system and a health care system that are the worst of any industrialized nation and ranks behind some third world countries."

Please provide data and examples.

Posted by: Tammy | August 14, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Average Joe is dumber than a box of dumb rocks. Typical left wing nonsense - tax the rich, tax corporations, tax oil companies, tax wall street. You want everyone else to pay taxes but yet 50% of the population doesn't pay income taxes. Why do they get a pass?

You are a socialist. Pray Barack gets into office so your greedy lips can latch on to Uncle Sam's nipple.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Bruce - I feel sorry for you. You are an idiot. Over the last five decades or so, dividends accounted for 45% of the total market return. And investors only look for appreciation? Open your text book if you have one.

And if you hate corporations that much, move to Russia where the government is taking them all over. Oh wait, you can just stay here and wait for BHO to do the same. Socialst nut jobs!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

2/3 of Corporations paid no taxes between 1998 and 2005. 100-300 billion dollars a year in tax revenues are lost to corporations who manipulate tax havens. Less tax is paid by those who profit from already having wealth than by those who must work everyday simply to survive. The tax policies in place today are the same as those seen in the 1920's leading up to the great depression. The disparity in wealth and income are the same as those seen in the 1920's leading up to the great depression. These are the same tried and true republican ideals and interests that have before led to and again lead to economic ruin, the governmental policy of aristocracy and an underclass. The systematic repeal of laws and regulations put in place to protect us from the markets wanton greed. The manipulated rhetoric that blinds the public to the true nature of what has been perpetrated.
All it would take is a simple 1% tax directly on wall street. 1 penny for every dollar traded and in one year the national debt would be payed and this nation would have a surplus the likes of which has never been seen. Wall street has between 2 and 6 quad-drillion that is 2-6 thousand trillion dollars worth of derivatives. With that simple penny from every dollar the American people would want for nothing. We would eliminate the debt to generations that have yet to be born and provide a standard of leaving unequaled in the world.
The wealthiest country in the world and we have a infrastructure, an education system and a health care system that are the worst of any industrialized nation and ranks behind some third world countries. This is a travesty! Tax the rich, feed the poor and remove the yoke of a Corporate tyranny. It is the only way to insure our countries future

Posted by: Average joe | August 14, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

WAPO poster, your comment about dividends makes perfect sense from the classical point of view. However, in real life, that's not how things work now, so be realistic. 25% of major corporations did not pay any federal income tax in 2005.
People play the market for the price of the stock, not the return on dividend. And CEO's pay is not related to the profits of the company. By rights, those 25% should have required their CEO's to make minimum wage. More like 450 times minimum wage, dont you know? 1000? 2000? And what about the Native American recommendation that we make decisions to take into account the repercussion on the 7th generation? Not.
The next quarter. The entire price of the stock goes down like a rock if the quarterly report is off by .001 compared to analysts predictions. Utter nonsense. Want the solution?
END THE LEGAL FICTION THAT CORPORATIONS HAVE THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS.

Posted by: Bruce | August 14, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Ever stop to wonder WHO it is thats Mis-managing those Banks, savings and loans companys, and mortage companys that the FEDS has to bail out OVER% AND OVER???

Ill Bet they never voted for a democrat in their lifetime, Yet they expect us, The Government, to fix their blunders while they walk with millions!!And who do you think has helped decimate income For those less fortunate to get a full college education, even though they are expected to work twice as hard, twice as long to get a mediocre life ?
Ask your closest Management, or Mis-management how this all happened.They wont tell you the truth, but its out there. Funny thing is, the lower and middle class are quickly becoming one, so all you wanna be wealthy mid or semi executives making that 250 bubble number, your'e next on corporate america's chopping block.
Why , you ask? Because you cant knock down people who are allready at the bottom any further.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

can we really trust someone who Listens to every Evangelic rightie, switches coattails to hang onto without hesitation, or has been a destinct part of why America is becoming a 2 class country, those who have and those who dont.
Even as centered as McCain is trying to relay himself as, we all know he will bend WAY to the right to get his ear scratched, like the Good old boys allways do.Ya'll thought you had something special with Bush in office, but you wonder why a 150 dollar grocerey bill became a 300 dollar bill in three years??It's the GOP philosophy, keep the rich happy, and who gives a crap about everybody else

Posted by: mullett | August 14, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Does Obambi actually HAVE any new ideas, or is he still stuck in the old Democrat rut of Class Warfare and sop "The 'Rich'"?

All we hear about this guy is that he's "A New Kind of Politician" --- yeah, sure. And he's spewing the same nonsense that Democrat presidential candidates have been spewing for more than 40 years now.

Look: Medicare is on the verge of BANKRUPTCY. The Fed has stepped in to prop up banks; otherwise, a lot of them would have FAILED. Social Security holds NOTHING but a bunch of IOU's from the US Government that aren't worth the paper they're written on.

John McCain might be old, but at least he's putting his country first and daring to touch "The Third Rail" of Social Security. And he's also not talking down the economy to erode consumer confidence so as to make a "Republican recession" a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Where's "Mr. New Age Politics" on that? Or does he first need to consult with his fellow "Citizens of the World" back in Berlin???

Posted by: PaulNYCUS | August 14, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

The middle class of America has become an endagered species, we have the rich, and we have the poor. It seems to me that we should base our economics on how much it costs to fill a grocerey cart with food at the local store. Some of us pay our taxes, work every day and still find ourselves coming up short on the end of the stick, maybe some of you high thinkers ought to consider that any tax cut would help.

Posted by: DB Cooper | August 14, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

tax and spend? Let's see here, President Bush brought us a near 10 trillion dollars national debt. While, somehow the middle class is shrinking and the lower class is growing. Obama's plan makes a lot more since in times like today, than John McCain's (who opposed the Bush tax cuts but now supports them).

Posted by: Bill | August 14, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

tax and spend? Let's see here, President Bush brought us a near 10 trillion dollars national debt. While, somehow the middle class is shrinking and the lower class is growing. Obama's plan makes a lot more since in times like today, than John McCain's (who opposed the Bush tax cuts but now supports them).

Posted by: Bill | August 14, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Can we really TRUST someone who spent 20 years with a racist preacher and was introduced into politics by a terrorist?

Posted by: Toxic Avenger | August 14, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

tax and spend? Let's see here, President Bush brought us a near 10 trillion dollars national debt. While, somehow the middle class is shrinking and the lower class is growing. Obama's plan makes a lot more since in times like today, than John McCain's (who opposed the Bush tax cuts but now supports them).

Posted by: Bill | August 14, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama stated a Politics 101 fact that most Americans don't know.... Majority of a candidates plans won't take effect for 5-10 years.... Do they have 10 year terms? Obama just verified that with his "10-year Social Security time-line".... This is is 1 of the many reasons I respect Obama and helping throughout Central Florida to get him elected.... Unlike McCain, Obama is the "Straight Talker" just without the logo, bus, and plane, and goofy smile......

Posted by: UCFPoliSciGuy | August 14, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

A few people seem to forget if the midle and lower classes have an added tax burden then they will always stay in the lower echelon and never have the ability to take their savings to reinvest to work themselves up to the higher level.

The national household median income is currently approx $48K. Maybe those folks who are so fervent about "bootstrap policy" may have forgotten what it must be like to try to raise a family on a 2 earner income of $48K?

Some morons posting here are saying half the population doesn't pay taxes? So you must be counting children under the age of 18?

Maybe we should just cut out child credits and stop giving tax cuts to breeders?

Posted by: Sparky | August 14, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

The tax system is broken. We're solid middle class. My parents donated some money to my kids to start investing for college. They paid a higher total tax rate on their earnings than my wife and I did on ours due to tax credits for kids.

It's true that the poor - with credits - don't pay federal taxes. They do pay high proportional sales taxes though.

The rich do pay most of the taxes now, and economically it is true that revenues have increased as their tax burden dropped. Whether this will continue for a long time or whether it reflects the rich jumping at the opportunity to translate gains to cash at a low rate is debatable.

Regardless, with the deficits we are running and a profligate Congress that the voters won't vote out of office, everybody's tax rate should be higher than it is. At the same time, we should end corporate taxation - the cost is passed on to clients and customers or the company goes broke. Every time they pass the cost up the line to the next company in the product chain, the final product cost gets marked up to cover that cost. I'm not sure what would have to be done to effect the transition - it would be complicated due to inventory - but something needs changed there.

Stop worrying about what either political party presidential candidate says they are going to do. Congress passes the laws and without a line item veto authority at the executive level, Congress will get its way. Pick the candidate that you think is the best person and will generally make the best decisions and will actually get Congress to get something done. The last congressional session was a huge waste of salary in my opinion. It raised "do nothing" to new heights.

If you really want change, force Congress to reduce spending. Ron Paul has been very obstructionist in Congress's efforts to spend your money. Write him in rather than wasting your vote on either current major party candidate if you want spending reduced.

If you want to get to know both candidates better, I suggest you read both of their books. While I'm not sure I'd vote for BHO as a long term republican, he presents some excellent points in his book. I'm very sure I won't be voting for McCain.

Posted by: hierofalcon | August 14, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Dividends are supposed to be the distribution of profits to a corporation's investors. In fact, dividends rather than the potential for capital appreciation should be the primary motivation for investing in any business. After all, without a return on investment, what is the point? However the tax system distorts investing into what we have today.

Realize first that corporations are paying 35% or so on profits before any dividend payout. Once the shareholder receives the dividend, he will pay another 15% (today) to the government on the money already taxed at the world's second highest corporate tax rate. Because of this double taxation, shareholders (with the enthusiastic support of corporate executives) prefer capital appreciation because no tax is due until the stock is sold. As a result, shareholders seem to actually want stock buybacks rather than dividends. But since stock buybacks may or may not be fully realized and are not clearly reported and because accounting is only slightly less subject to manipulation than are statistics, it is easy to end up with the abuses that Sarbanes-Oxley was intended to correct. Instead, encouraging dividend distributions would have had a far better impact on the market because of the difficulty of manipulating the actual payment of cash over the long-term.

Dividends are a better proxy for corporate health than any accounting statements produced and audited by third-parties that may or may not have conflicts of interest. However, our tax system and the political rhetoric surrounding it does more to ensure the livelihood of accountants, lawyers, and government employees than it does to provide shareholders with a relatively low-risk and transparent financial return.

Posted by: washingtonpost | August 14, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Hey Vote Magoo:

Typical liberal response. You're rich ... and you don't pay taxes?

No comment. Go post with your fringe left bloggers that buy that BS.

If you want to debate facts then let's hear it.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Hey Norm,

Please go back to your barstool at CHEERS and have another beer.

Take it from somebody who's rich, like me, I don't pay any taxes.

Only the 'little people' pay taxes.

Vote McCain for more of the same! That's what I say - don't pay ANY taxes!

Posted by: Vote Magoo he's an adulteror too! | August 14, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Our great nation affords virtually everyone the same opportunity. It's what you make of it. Just because someone is better off than another doesn't mean you punish their success by overtaxing them. Their success is because of them, not because of the country. That is where you are dead wrong. You feel entitled. That's the root of socialism. I take it you are a BHO fan. Go figure.

I don't blame the rich for finding tax shelters. I don't blame companies for offshoring jobs.

You will only see more of that under BHO.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

McCain is spectacularly out of touch and in more than just a "he's a Bush clone" sort of way, but more in a "how could anyone (McCain) who's been paying attention think Bush is better now than ever" sort of way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBfngOsvmA0

Posted by: McCain = Bush's third term | August 14, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

"Half the population doesn't even pay taxes. The "rich" pay the vast majority of the taxes. You tell me, liberals, what is fair? Wealth redistribution does not work. BHO is a socialist who wants to take from one group (those who have succeeded) and give to another group (those who haven't). It is that simple.

If it weren't for the rich we would all be poor. To you liberals (who work) - how many times have you been hired by a poor person?

Get off of Uncle Sam's nipple and make it on your own."

I personally love such stupid remarks as this.

You only make so much money cause this great nation allows you to, Damn right you should pay up to this country for all the opportunity and fortune it has granted you.

You think its a re-distrbution of wealth? Only social programs that effect that the lower classes see a benefit, the middle class will see nothing. Yet someone like you would love to tax the hell out of the middle class and abolish it.

A 2 class system is the first indicition of a third world country.

Posted by: Josh | August 14, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

McCain is a panderer - That is a pathetic rationalization for overtaxing one group and not taxing another at all.

First, the poor DO NOT PAY TAXES. Second, when the "rich" fly on a plane they pay taxes. They pay taxes to register their car. Nothing is free in life. You pay when it comes in and you pay when it goes out.

As for "tax the poor into oblivion" - get your facts straight ... THE VAST MAJORITY DO NOT PAY TAXES! Into oblivion ... you are a moron. Educate yourself before posting.

AND GET OFF UNCLE SAM'S NIPPLE YOU SPONGE!

Posted by: Norm | August 14, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Hey ZappoDave - I take it you are upset about your position in this world and want to take it out on those that have made it. Then BHO is your guy. He'll take someone else's money and give it to you. Sounds so good on paper.

ZappoDave - What percentage do you think the rich should pay? Do you think it is right that half the population pays no taxes at all?

Move to Cuba.

Posted by: California Republican | August 14, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Norm, you might want to look into the reason that we have a progressive tax code - something which most of our founding fathers supported. There's a reason that people like Thomas Paine promoted the idea of progressive taxes - because the rich benefit *FAR* more from the government spending that is done with those taxes.

The infrastructure and security that those taxes bring for our nation our utilized much more by the rich than by the poor. Do you think it's fair that the poor should have to pay as much for something as a rich person when they're not getting as much out of it? If someone is too poor to own a car, should they be paying the same taxes going to roads as a business that has a fleet of 500 trucks that travel across the U.S.? Should they be paying as much for the NTSB as a rich person when they've never ridden a plane in their life and the rich guy is taking weekly flights?

If you want to tax the poor into oblivion, you can give that a try, but don't expect much help when the poor get so poor that they decide that revolting and killing you is worth it so that they can take your house and have a place to live.

Posted by: McCain is a panderer | August 14, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Half the population doesn't even pay taxes. The "rich" pay the vast majority of the taxes. You tell me, liberals, what is fair? Wealth redistribution does not work. BHO is a socialist who wants to take from one group (those who have succeeded) and give to another group (those who haven't). It is that simple.

If it weren't for the rich we would all be poor. To you liberals (who work) - how many times have you been hired by a poor person?

Get off of Uncle Sam's nipple and make it on your own.

Posted by: Norm | August 14, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"The middle class is crunched, which is why we need a more "simplified" tax system, not a take and give system Dick."

Your premise does not support your conclusion.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Mike Lorrey showed his lack of understanding when he wrote:
"Here's a good question: Given its proven that whenever they lower tax rates (percentages) they wind up collecting MORE overall in tax dollars, why oh WHY would Obama want to raise tax rates again unless he wanted to REDUCE revenues?"

Given that you begin with a false premise, no it's not a good question.

Posted by: McCain is a panderer | August 14, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Len,

"He is giving tax breaks to 95% of americans! Shut up, take the money and stop looking for a problem where there isn't one!"

Consumer spending by the Rich contributes to 15% of GDP... What do you think would happen to GDP if the rich stopped spending money, stopped hiring the Small Business owners to build houses, boats, SUV's, Pools and other products and services for them? You should look into Trickle down economics... it works. I know because I work in the Building industry and I wouldn't have a job if the Rich did not continue to spend money to buy homes and building products. Lower Taxes for the Rich = more spending by the rich = increased job opportunities and pay for the other 95% of us.

The middle class is crunched, which is why we need a more "simplified" tax system, not a take and give system Dick.

Posted by: karl | August 14, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

You liberal morons need to get your facts straight before you talk out of that hole you call your mouth.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Compare Clinton's term to Bush's term and you tell me the average American's income tax didn't drop significantly. My federal income tax rate fell 6% thanks to Bush, and I don't make over $250,000.

Posted by: Educated American | August 14, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Well, this is nice.

Now for the serious question:

Will Congress get behind this plan? The President could want a bill that gives free ice cream to everyone on Friday's after lunch, but if Congress isn't behind it, it's not happening.

(And what's with the SS issue? Another news outlet reported no tax increases until 2009. A typo, perhaps?

Posted by: None of the Above 08 | August 14, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

It's proven that Trickle Down economics is a farce. It doesn't work. If you cut taxes on corporations and the richest Americans, they DON'T create jobs... they simply make more money, while the rest of us lose any gains we've had in the last two decades due to Dubya's complete failure of a presidency.

Posted by: Josh | August 14, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

McCain doesn't have a clue as to how to go about fixing our economic mess that Bush created. The guy is dumber than a bag of rocks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZUu7p6rGss

Posted by: Blutto | August 14, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Mike Lorry,

Unless you make over $250K/year why do you care? He is giving tax breaks to 95% of americans! Shut up, take the money and stop looking for a problem where there isn't one!

Posted by: Len | August 14, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Grampy McBush has an economic plan, it's called:
"Less Jobs and More War"!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nqtL-P8kzo

Posted by: flesh | August 14, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

His tax hike isn't going to kick in for a decade? Is this during his third term? Weird.

Anyway, for all we know, Obama may truly want a capital gains tax rate of 20%, and may not intend to raise payroll taxes until years down the road. Obama may want all this stuff, but he ain't Congress. If Congress sends up a capital gains tax hike to 25% as part of a bill that has other stuff that he likes, will he veto it? We have no idea. Everyone has to compromise. Anything that doesn't carry a veto promise is an empty promise.

Posted by: AK | August 14, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

And what's McCain economic plan again? Oh yeah, stay the course with Bush's tax cuts for the richest 1% of Americans, the biggest corporations and the Big Oil companies!


When the American public disapproves of Bush's Presidency more and more each day, why does McCain continue to increase his support of such increasingly unpopular policies and positions?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBfngOsvmA0

Posted by: ZappoDave | August 14, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Here's a good question: Given its proven that whenever they lower tax rates (percentages) they wind up collecting MORE overall in tax dollars, why oh WHY would Obama want to raise tax rates again unless he wanted to REDUCE revenues?

Posted by: Mike Lorrey | August 14, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Hardly the definition of "tax and spend." This should calm some voters...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | August 14, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

They found Big Foot, And you will never guess what candidate he is supporting. Wow I figured he would be a libertarian. http://www.myhauntsite.com

Posted by: Peter | August 14, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company