Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Palin, Biden Clash on Taxes and Media

By Perry Bacon, Jr.
AKRON,Ohio -- It's Sarah Palin vs. Joe Biden on the campaign trail today.

Joe Biden defended a remark he made earlier in the day that it was "patriotic" for American families who make more than $250,000 a year to pay higher taxes, a view Palin had sharply attacked.

"Wealthy people are just as patriotic as poor people, we just have not asked anything of them," Biden said at small event with labor activists here. "John McCain is making fun of the fact that I said paying taxes is patriotic."

Repeating his remark that he tells people worried up about higher taxes, "It's time to be patriotic," Biden added: "We have no problem, sending our kids -- 1 percent of us -- sending our kids to war. We have no problem sending National Guard folks, two, three and four times" to Iraq and Afghanistan.

At an event in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, earlier in the day, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin criticized Biden's tax remarks, saying, "to the rest of America, that's not patriotism."

"Raising taxes is about killing jobs and hurting small businesses and making things worse," she said.

Barack Obama has called for raising the highest tax rate on income from 35 to 39.6 percent, where it was in 2000, to fund expanded health insurance and other domestic programs. Biden noted that this rate would still be much lower than taxes during the 1980's, when the highest margin tax rate was 70 percent.

The campaigns have for weeks dueled over taxes, as McCain has criticized Obama for proposing hikes on capital gains and income taxes and suggested Obama would raise taxes on middle-class families, even though the Illinois senator has repeatedly said he would not and his proposals don't include tax increases on people who make less than $250,000.

Obama has suggested his tax increases would not harm the economy and would reduce income inequality, but has not used the patriotic line that Biden employed. McCain and Palin have argued any tax increases would slow economic growth.

Biden, at the tail end of a two-day bus tour through Ohio, also blasted Palin for not doing more interviews with reporters.

"I was told I've done, I don't know, 68 or 70 press conferences," Biden said, mistaking "press conferences" for interviews with reporters. He has done only a handful of press conferences since becoming the vice-presidential nominee, but dozens of interviews.

Biden said he was asked his views on Palin in one of those interviews.

"The person says, 'What do you think about Sarah Palin?' and I told the person, 'I don't know, when she does three, I'll let you know,'" he said, meaning three interviews. "Look guys, it's not just Sarah Palin. When's the last time John had a press conference? I'm serious ... When an elected official stops holding press conferences, it ain't because he's found a new way to communicate. It's because he's doesn't want to communicate."

After Biden finished his remarks, reporters were sent to a filing area that included a microphone on a stand in front of a blue awning and an American flag. The staging seemed set for a press conference, but Biden, like McCain and Obama, largely does interviews with local television stations and print reporters on the campaign trail, as well as appearances on network shows.

All three limit formal press conferences with reporters, although McCain has committed to weekly press conferences if he is elected president. Palin has just done two network interviews so far.

By Web Politics Editor  |  September 18, 2008; 5:15 PM ET
Categories:  Joe Biden , Sarah Palin  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Joe Biden, Enjoying the Campaign Trail
Next: Cox Ignores McCain's Criticism

Comments

I am not an Obama fan but now you say he is spreading lies about you. Everything here is a lie? You tell us.

Possibly charged rape kits to victims, does not believe in evolution, religion is questionable, encourages shooting bears and wolves from lowing flying planes, troopergate, no abortions for rape or incest, supported the bridge to no where before she opposed it. Has a pregnant teenager, her only experiences with Foreign Relations is the fact she can see Russia from AL, Questioned a librarian about book banning and later the librarian was fired. Does not believe in Global Warming, and left her city in debt as Mayor.
HAS NOT SUBMITTED HER TAX RETURNS YET

Cannot stand the heat - better get out of the kitchen.

Posted by: whynot | September 23, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Joe Biden was right and he was not the first person to equate taxation and patriotism. FDR spoke about it in his “Four Freedoms” speech in 1941. He called upon Americans to sacrifice both personally and financially. Those Americans who answered FDRs call are called "The Greatest Generation." What sacrifice has been asked by President Bush of the American people to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afganistan? None. What will the name of this generation be called, "The Selfish Generation?" or "The Generation who made the Next Generation Pay?" It's shameful. Either you believe in America's freedom and are willing to pay for it or you aren't. Freedom isn't free. Isn't that what Gov. Palin and her friends in the GOP likes to always say.

Excerpted from “The Four Freedoms” Speech delivered 6 January, 1941 by FDR
I have called for personal sacrifice, and I am assured of the willingness of almost all Americans to respond to that call. A part of the sacrifice means the payment of more money in taxes. In my budget message I will recommend that a greater portion of this great defense program be paid for from taxation than we are paying for today. No person should try, or be allowed to get rich out of the program, and the principle of tax payments in accordance with ability to pay should be constantly before our eyes to guide our legislation.
If the Congress maintains these principles the voters, putting patriotism ahead pocketbooks, will give you their applause.

Excerpted from FDR’s Fireside Chat 19 (December 9, 1941)
On the War with Japan
On the road ahead there lies hard work -- grueling work -- day and night, every hour and every minute.
I was about to add that ahead there lies sacrifice for all of us.
But it is not correct to use that word. The United States does not consider it a sacrifice to do all one can, to give one's best to our nation, when the nation is fighting for its existence and its future life.
It is not a sacrifice for any man, old or young, to be in the Army or the Navy of the United States. Rather it is a privilege.
It is not a sacrifice for the industrialist or the wage earner, the farmer or the shopkeeper, the trainmen or the doctor, to pay more taxes, to buy more bonds, to forego extra profits, to work longer or harder at the task for which he is best fitted. Rather it is a privilege.
It is not a sacrifice to do without many things to which we are accustomed if the national defense calls for doing without it.
A review this morning leads me to the conclusion that at present we shall not have to curtail the normal use of articles of food. There is enough food today for all of us and enough left over to send to those who are fighting on the same side with us.
But there will be a clear and definite shortage of metals for many kinds of civilian use, for the very good reason that in our increased program we shall need for war purposes more than half of that portion of the principal metals which during the past year have gone into articles for civilian use. Yes, we shall have to give up many things entirely.
And I am sure that the people in every part of the nation are prepared in their individual living to win this war. I am sure that they will cheerfully help to pay a large part of its financial cost while it goes on. I am sure they will cheerfully give up those material things that they are asked to give up.
And I am sure that they will retain all those great spiritual things without which we cannot win through.

Posted by: A Paul Nelson | September 21, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Palin on Fox is not an interview

That is an infomercial

Posted by: mister.earl | September 20, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that Sarah is afraid to talk to the press?
I heard the McCain camp is also limiting the amount of time she can talk at the VP debate.

If she can't even talk to reporters, how the heck is she going to talk to Putin?

What was McCain thinking when he picked her?
One things for certain, he WAS NOT putting country first.

Posted by: Jillian | September 20, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

BLUE STAR FAMILIES FOR OBAMA!

www.bsf4o.com

As military family members who support Barack Obama, we knew there was something different this election cycle. More interest in the Dem candidate, fewer Republican bumper stickers than we're used to seeing.

But nothing prepared us for this. Our new Blue Star Families for Obama website went live yesterday (www.bsf4o.com). We expected it to generate a little interest, but hey, we're volunteers, we've done no publicity about it, no press release, no ads, nothing. So we didn't expect over 3000 hits in the first few hours.

Blue Star Families for Obama was started by five Army and Marine Corps wives back in July. We have a budget of zero. You might otherwise know us as the casserole brigade. But in just two short months we have generated chapters in 23 states, helped host a care package service event at the convention in Denver attended by Michelle Obama, attended dozens of rallies and roundtables and hosted house parties across the country. And keep in mind - we admire John McCain's service to his country. What we do not admire is his vision for tomorrow and his long refusal to provide real support to the military community.

Military families are flocking to Senator Obama because we recognize real respect when we see it. The Senator's admiration and support of military families and veterans is clear in his record, his stump speeches and his constant reminders to the country that we should all be a part of the war on terror - and not just by going shopping.

If you need proof, look no further than the new GI Bill. Supported by every major veterans' group in this country. Passed by a veto-proof bipartisan majority (hello, Governor Palin?). A real chance for veterans who sweated it out for years defending this country without question to contribute to it once again, through a solid education and upward mobility.

Senator McCain inexplicably and inexcusably opposed the bill for budgetary reasons. Military families have seen eight years of attempted cuts to our benefits by the current administration. Do they really think we are getting too much? We dare you to come and live our lives for a couple of years and make that argument.

On our website we'll be posting comparisons of Obama v McCain's voting record on defense and veterans issues. We'd compare McCain's plans for military families to Obama's, except that only Barack Obama has a plan that directly addresses our issues.

So we say to the many thousands who have checked out our site in the last day or so, and to the rest of you: Please come back. Keep reading. Decide for yourself. And join us in electing a president who will restore our respect and sense of community with our civilian brothers and sisters, not one who will continue to ask us to serve in silence.

Barack Obama for President!

Posted by: SueMVetforOBAMA | September 20, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Under Palin, Wasilla Charged Rape Victims for Rape Kits!

She's no feminist, she's a lying loon!
(Former Gov) Knowles broke new ground while answering a reporter's question on whether Wasilla forced rape victims to pay for their own forensic tests when Palin was mayor.

True, Knowles said. Eight years ago, complaints about charging rape victims for medical exams in Wasilla prompted the Alaska Legislature to pass a bill -- signed into law by Knowles -- that banned the practice statewide."

There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this (Rape kits), and that was Wasilla," Knowles said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPTVybEndIo

Biden authored the Violence Against Women Act.

Palin Earmarks? New and NOW! The Knik Arm Crossing- $400-600 Million

It's the Other "Bridge to Nowhere" strictly for Wasilla and its developers. You and I get to help pay for while our infrastructure crumbles.

mccain/palin - WHEN PIGS FLY!

BLUE STAR FAMILIES FOR OBAMA!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse


If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic, different."

Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers -- a quintessential American story.

If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.

Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track -- you're a maverick.

Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.

Attend five different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.

If you spend three years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a constitutional law professor, spend eight years as a state senator representing a district with more than 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.


If your total resume is: local weather girl, four years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with fewer than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.

If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising two beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.

If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.

If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society

If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.

If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner-city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.

If your husband is nicknamed "First Dude," with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

Clear things up???

Posted by: ron | September 20, 2008 5:32 AM | Report abuse

Refuses to show tax returns, refuses to comply in troopergate, no abortion for rape and incest, shoots bears from low flying planes, teenager pregnant, 5 children (1) with down syndrome, attended 6 colleges, bankrupts AL as Mayor, for he bridge before she was against it, Religion is questionable. Uses her Yahoo account for business. Has foreign relations exp. because she can see Russia from AL.Does not believe in global warming or evolution.Fired Libraian when asked about book banning. I just do not see how we could have found a better candidate for VP.

Sarah, Todd and what his name are a great team - you have my vote.

Posted by: hottpics | September 19, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Refuses to show tax returns, refuses to comply in troopergate, no abortion for rape and incest, shoots bears from low flying planes, teenager pregnant, 5 children (1) with down syndrome, attended 6 colleges, bankrupts AL as Mayor, for he bridge before she was against it, Religion is questionable. Uses her Yahoo account for business. Has foreign relations exp. because she can see Russia from AL. I just do not see how we could have found a better candidate for VP.

Sarah, Todd and what his name are a great team - you have my vote.

Posted by: hottpics | September 19, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Hi,

I wanted to draw your attention to this important petition that I recently signed:

"Impeach Senator Barack Obama"
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/obamaimpeachment?e ...

I really think this is an important cause, and I'd like to encourage you to add your signature, too. It's free and takes less than a minute of your time.

Thanks!............

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/obamaimpeachment?e

Posted by: WillNotBeFooledByObamaNATION | September 19, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Are there more LYING Obama ads on the way? The man of integrity has shown his true colors.

Posted by: Lying Obama | September 19, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

"There are schools in the country that wants to teach intelligent design as science. That is a right wing agenda. That is faith, not science.

The right wing administration defies all science and wisdom in declaring climate change non-existent !:

I agree intelligent design should not be taught as science. However I do agree it can be mentioned as a PHILOSOPHICAL alternative to the accepted science of evolution since a large percentage of the world believes in creationism. However creationism should be in the context of philosophy not science. I do agree the right wing tries to influence education also. However I see that liberal ideals outweigh conservative ideals in education at this time so I see them as a bigger threat.

AWG is another political topic that is an example of "liberal ideals" being taught in school. Everyone is up in arms about creationism but how about extremist scare tactics like "An Inconvenient Truth" being taught in schools as science?

AGW is merely a theory and is now being defended on unscientific means such as "flat earth society" and "the debate is over." Climate change obviously happens but depending on runaway positive feedback mechanisms contradictory to nearly any other climate or science models to defend a AGW hypothesis is not good science either. ALso notice most AGW "solutions" merely involve wealth transfer and taxes and do not cut to the heart of the problem.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

""We can stop debating and you can have the "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude just like what causes deadlock in congress."

You state as though all differing opinions are liberal fanatic rants or partisan tools. That is the exact "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude.

It is true that we have differing opinions and conclusions. I am willing to argue for that conclusion, not because I am liberal or conservative alway, it is because I have understood the world in that way"

The views you were defending are typically liberal views so that is what I rightfully called them. It would not be wrong for you to say most of my views are conservative as they are mostly when it comes to fiscal policy and economics.

However "Rush" is one of the classic defenses used to quell useful debate and I don't have time for garbage like that.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

"We can stop debating and you can have the "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude just like what causes deadlock in congress."

You state as though all differing opinions are liberal fanatic rants or partisan tools. That is the exact "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude.

It is true that we have differing opinions and conclusions. I am willing to argue for that conclusion, not because I am liberal or conservative alway, it is because I have understood the world in that way.

Posted by: Fido | September 19, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

"The economic principles we discussed are only relevant if we keep the lead in technology but we are short changing our children's education in favor of promoting liberal ideals."

There you again ! Changing tact, i see. What liberal ideals ?

There are schools in the country that wants to teach intelligent design as science. That is a right wing agenda. That is faith, not science.

The right wing administration defies all science and wisdom in declaring climate change non-existent !

Yes, the school system needs to be more accountable. But that is only half the picture. Parent need to do more. They need to switch off the TV and spend time with children on education. We have glorified sports and "American idol" enough. Kids want to be entertainers and athletes more than engineers and scientists. Being smart in school is actually a bad thing. Only in America ! The culture and attitude towards science and technology needs to change. That is a societal/govt/parental role.

Posted by: Fido | September 19, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"Anyways, it is clear you have no idea how world economies work. It seems like all your education has come from Rush Limbaugh. You don't get the basics."

Lol Fido you may have knowledge of some economic principles but you are a partisan idealistic tool. I concede we both understand the principles but disagree on conclusions from those principles and you resort to "you think like Rush." Fine. We can stop debating and you can have the "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude just like what causes deadlock in congress.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"We disagree on what we feel is an appropriate tax burden but I hope the logic in your posts regarding the reality of these economic issues can extend to the liberal platform instead of pandering to labor and other special interests by representing them as unilaterally negative"

Yes we do. And that's ok and healthy. Pandering is bad no matter to labor groups or un-ethical large corporate groups. The govt. has a duty to the people only. It needs to rein in wayward corporate greed and stupid labor laws. No doubt. Pandering is not a liberal or conservative trait exclusively . It needs to be called out, no matter. But McCain not only panders and lies about it sanctimoniously. But that is not the only reason , I find him unfit.

Posted by: Fido | September 19, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

To add to my last post one of the biggest problems is the US is falling further and further behind in our lead in technology and innovation. Our percentage of worldwide patents has been consistently falling the last several decades and will lead to us no longer be able to effectively use the world economy like discussed in our last couple of posts.

We have stopped pushing top performance in science, math and other technical areas. There are several debatable reasons for this but a couple I have issues with are

1. We have dumbed down expectations in the name of "prejudiced testing and fairness" IE removing science and math as a major component of competency testing and replaced it with less tangible curriculums. We claimed these tests "favored white males" and as a result lowered the common denominator. Then we wonder why we are scoring lower in math and science.

2. We spend less time on "the 3 Rs" and are spending more time on "social issues" in school which should be side topics not the main courses. Social issues have replaced hard science and math for a lot of students time in school.

The economic principles we discussed are only relevant if we keep the lead in technology but we are short changing our children's education in favor of promoting liberal ideals.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

"So in other words you agree that under equal circumstances American companies cannot compete and they are forced to either have a better product or use a strategy such as outsourcing to compete with the same type of product. Thank you it sounds like you agree with my assessment which to me says that american companies do not need a higher tax burden to make the circumstances even worse."

Where's your "education" when you need it ?
You get paid more ! and you have to be more innovative to demand that kind of pay. Not choose to pay no taxes or screw the environment since it is easier to do than be innovative . The very same taxes go into giving you this awesome infrastructure and support systems that in turn provides you with a workforce and environment so that you can be innovative and successful .

Anyways, it is clear you have no idea how world economies work. It seems like all your education has come from Rush Limbaugh. You don't get the basics.

Posted by: Fido | September 19, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

"The issue of deficits is not the fault of a tax structure, it is an effect of the dollar rates and also how much we export to China in return. BTW, with the dollar falling, this deficit is actually decreasing.

And we don't have to look at this as selling only to China. the fact that for e.g. Apple can buy cheap stuff from China and in turn produce premium products that sells worldwide (not just to China) makes the deficit with China not a big deal.

Another fact is the America IS the biggest market in the world and we buy ! , so every country exports to the US. These are the real simple economics. You who mention you education every few minutes should have known this."

I never refuted any of those facts and it is good to see you do have a grip on many economic principles unlike Tim. However our conclusions based off of the same principles are different.

A lower dollar is good and bad the good side being what you mentioned. That is why the Chinese have been under fire for years about keeping their currency undervalued to encourage exports and discourage imports.

However the liberal platform you're defending uses things that we both can see the ups and downs of like the low dollar, deficits with China, and outsourcing as class warfare tactics claiming they are entirely negative.

We disagree on what we feel is an appropriate tax burden but I hope the logic in your posts regarding the reality of these economic issues can extend to the liberal platform instead of pandering to labor and other special interests by representing them as unilaterally negative.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"So with this logic can you explain how our deficit keeps rising with China if american companies are doing so well and american products sell better? And how large american industries are barely staying afloat and depending on things like outsourcing or foreign corporate headquarters to avoid bankruptcy?"

if you followed how World Economics work (if allowed to), then it makes sense that Chinese companies can so the same small widgets (say, like a pencil) cheaper than anybody else. As as they do and their workers get more money to spend, they turn around and but an Apple ipod or their govt. buys a Boeing airplane or a GE medical systems from the US.


The issue of deficits is not the fault of a tax structure, it is an effect of the dollar rates and also how much we export to China in return. BTW, with the dollar falling, this deficit is actually decreasing.

And we don't have to look at this as selling only to China. the fact that for e.g. Apple can buy cheap stuff from China and in turn produce premium products that sells worldwide (not just to China) makes the deficit with China not a big deal.

Another fact is the America IS the biggest market in the world and we buy ! , so every country exports to the US. These are the real simple economics. You who mention you education every few minutes should have known this.

Posted by: Fido | September 19, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

"No, that is bogus economics. high cost of labor is not due to high taxes (which has already been debunked as false)"

I never said this nice strawman argument. I was listing components that lead to total costs IE cost of labor, cost of manufacturing and taxes being the biggest components.

"So, the capital flows to another place that returns the same value, but with lower capital costs. In a globalized world that is easy to do now.

To compensate for the higher demands of labor by a workforce, you need make more valuable products that the market will be willing to pay more for. You cannot make the same widget forever thinking no one else can make it cheaper ever and the market will keep buying it from you forever."

So in other words you agree that under equal circumstances American companies cannot compete and they are forced to either have a better product or use a strategy such as outsourcing to compete with the same type of product. Thank you it sounds like you agree with my assessment which to me says that american companies do not need a higher tax burden to make the circumstances even worse.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Cryos wrote - "It has to do with being able to keep your business in business IE maintain profit margins. When there is a high cost of labor and high cost of manufacturing and your competitor is not subject to the same restrictions they can price their product lower than yours. Simple economics"

No, that is bogus economics. high cost of labor is not due to high taxes (which has already been debunked as false) . It is a reflection of the wealth and expectation of a country's work force (no matter what the tax, this will go up as long as the GDP grows) . So, the capital flows to another place that returns the same value, but with lower capital costs. In a globalized world that is easy to do now.

To compensate for the higher demands of labor by a workforce, you need make more valuable products that the market will be willing to pay more for. You cannot make the same widget forever thinking no one else can make it cheaper ever and the market will keep buying it from you forever.

That is economics. Not the over-simplified ,right wing falsehood that taxes lead to outsourcing, climate change, gay marriages and other apocalyptic events !

Posted by: Fido | September 19, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

"Even more funny, so do many other companies in the world. And even funnier, there really are other countries in the world that are sprouting up with new products that people seem to buy. Yet, Successful and innovative American companies outsell everybody else in the world market. e.g Apple and 3M are successful in their own right."

So with this logic can you explain how our deficit keeps rising with China if american companies are doing so well and american products sell better? And how large american industries are barely staying afloat and depending on things like outsourcing or foreign corporate headquarters to avoid bankruptcy?

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

"Oh really; thats funny I see american companies having a harder and harder time competing on the world stage"

Even more funny, so do many other companies in the world. And even funnier, there really are other countries in the world that are sprouting up with new products that people seem to buy. Yet, Successful and innovative American companies outsell everybody else in the world market. e.g Apple and 3M are successful in their own right.

Posted by: Fido | September 19, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"Cryos wrote - " I have provided more solid statistics."

Like what ? Information about widespread corporate fraud ? Oops, that was not you, that was basementfrog and me ? you just said "it was not detailed enough for me" Even if we send it you, I am sure the "memo" won't reach you"

I provided solid things like tax rates and known tax liabilities of an example Exxon. You provided a site that as I previously stated provided lots of accusations but few specifics or conclusions. This is common to many liberal platforms though; lots of accusations about how other people are doing it wrong but few solutions.

The specifics it did provide mostly are industries that contribute more to democrats backing the idea that democrats' pushing higher taxes is a form of a shakedown where they force everyone honest to pay more but give kickbacks or turn a blind eye to the organizations that give them money.

The government getting more money = the government having more power. If neo-cons and neo-libs can get out of the mainstream hopefully we can actually reduce spending and won't have the need for higher taxes.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

"They are getting along just well with the tax structure. For every tax rule, they have a equally satisfactory subsidy or loop hole."

Oh really; thats funny I see american companies having a harder and harder time competing on the world stage.

"Even the foreign companies (in Europe, Japan and rest of the developed world) Outsource. It has less to do with supposed exclusive tax liability of US companies and more to do with hard-nosed capitalism - invest the money where there is the greatest return. "

It has to do with being able to keep your business in business IE maintain profit margins. When there is a high cost of labor and high cost of manufacturing and your competitor is not subject to the same restrictions they can price their product lower than yours. Simple economics.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Cryos wrote - " I have provided more solid statistics."

Like what ? Information about widespread corporate fraud ? Oops, that was not you, that was basementfrog and me ? you just said "it was not detailed enough for me" Even if we send it you, I am sure the "memo" won't reach you

Posted by: fido | September 19, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"I guess this also explains how liberals fail to connect outsourcing with things like high taxes and regulations on US companies."

Another set of specious cherry picking ! Even the foreign companies (in Europe, Japan and rest of the developed world) Outsource ! It has less to do with supposed exclusive tax liability of US companies and more to do with hard-nosed capitalism - invest the money where there is the greatest return.

The Right wingers will tie everything from outsourcing, climate change and abortion rights to Taxes !, as if corporate taxes are somehow an American anomaly and is the bane of the nation.

Stop this nonsense and phony outrage. Let the American companies be successful by their innovation and ingeniousness. They are getting along just well with the tax structure. For every tax rule, they have a equally satisfactory subsidy or loop hole.

Posted by: Fido | September 19, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"And the claim that somehow a democratic administration would be against the US companies is biggest BS ever."

Well its not the 50s anymore where it is "corporations versus the people" it is US corporations versus foreign competition.

The laws we're looking at passing only effect companies based in the US so their competitors will not be subject to the same laws. Hence we are increasing AMERICAN corporations liability but the foreign companies products selling on the same shelf won't see a dime of these increases. I guess I don't understand how this helps the american companies.

I guess this also explains how liberals fail to connect outsourcing with things like high taxes and regulations on US companies. People don't take their ideals to the cash register and buy the cheaper Chinese products so american companies have to reduce costs somehow to compete and stay in business.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

"I agree with Tim. Cryos has been proved wrong again and again. Every time he brings up poor excuses.

It is true that Obama and McCain have both received corporate donations to their campaign. McCain has gotten the lion's share of this."

You have the right to your opinion but on the straight "right or wrong issues" I have provided more solid statistics. On many of the issues however neither of us are right or wrong; it is philosophical interpretations of facts.

FYI if you read that article Obama's bundlers raised more in "big money" then either Clinton or McCain. Obama has also gotten a lot of small donations from individuals but his large donations are "the lions share."

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Tim. Cryos has been proved wrong again and again. Every time he brings up poor excuses.

It is true that Obama and McCain have both received corporate donations to their campaign. McCain has gotten the lion's share of this. So its even more galling that he pretends to be against them. He is a bum that apparently wants to throw the bums out.

And the claim that somehow a democratic administration would be against the US companies is biggest BS ever. The same companies that thrive whether its a republican or democratic administration. The same companies that have hordes of lawyers, congressmen and lobbyists working for them. Some of the same companies whose leaders are corrupt and un-ethical. They pay taxes and also reap the benefits of tax breaks and loop holes.

Posted by: Fido | September 19, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

"I guess you are the one that doesn't understand statistics. 55 in about 27 or so years when thousands of bills would have been written. Even among those 55, how many are really significant (i.e. really challenging) Any senator will support a bill naming some national park.

Even more importantly, how many of those does McCain STILL support ?"

You need to reread. Once again the numbers are percentages of co-sponsors and the analysis only counts bills since Obama has been in the senate.

Also reread that MANY of McCains bills were highly controversial hence the reason for so many democratic sponsors. Several of these were in the last couple of years explaining a lot of the resistance to his campaign from conservatives. I don't agree with some of his decisions but recognize compromise is necessary to get anything done.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"Yes 55 versus 13 is VERY significant."

I guess you are the one that doesn't understand statistics. 55 in about 27 or so years when thousands of bills would have been written. Even among those 55, how many are really significant (i.e. really challenging) Any senator will support a bill naming some national park.

Even more importantly, how many of those does McCain STILL support ?

Posted by: Fido | September 19, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

"Tech companies like Microsoft (MSFT ), Cisco Systems (CSCO ), and Compaq Computer (HPQ ) proved adroit at shrinking their tax bills in the ’90s through many means."

The top people in these companies were large contributors to democrats and Clinton including Bill Gates who became the richest person in the world under Clinton's administration while the government let the antitrust lawsuits be delayed.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/us/politics/06bundlers.html?

So the link doesn't get deleted.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

"FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC EMPLOYEES, NOT THE COMPANIES, GAVE MONEY TO OBAMA."

Yeah you're right. The former CEOs which made huge bonuses off of falsely claimed profits by underwrting risky subprime loans. I guess its no surprise the industries involved in the subprime situation all heavily contributed to Obama also. The law firms that wrote the subprime contracts, the financial firms who made the loans and the real estate companies that profited from the sales.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/us/politics/06bundlers.html?

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

The people all debating against me seem to prove my notion that we don't need to increase tax rates but that we need to close loopholes and just ensure people pay the taxes how they are supposed to. Honest rich people are businesses pay what they are supposed to and will be the ones to take the burden.

Obama and democrats get every bit as much of money from big donors as republicans and will just continue to let companies of their choice evade taxes while the honest ones get the shaft. Perfect example Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The CEOs of those companies are working for Obama. Democrats let those companies falsely classify things as profits which allowed those CEOs to get huge bonuses even though Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were building up liabilities and underwriting subprime mortgages. Then it hits the fan and the significant role of those companies is swept under the rug.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were started by democrats and heavily contributed to democrats. Obama, Dodd and Clinton were 3 of the biggest beneficiaries. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are at the root of the financial problems since they allowed the other firms to make bad loans for PC reasons like minority home ownership and promised to underwrite and support those loans."

FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC EMPLOYEES, NOT THE COMPANIES, GAVE MONEY TO OBAMA.

SO DID MILLIONS OF EMPLOYEES FROM CAR COMPANIES, INSURANCE COMPANIES, OIL COMPANIES, AND GOVERNMENT. Individuals have the right to give money to whoever they want. You arguement is flawed. Go to FACTCHECK.ORG and FIND OUT HOW WRONG YOU ARE.

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

"So a BIPARTISAN group of senators writes a bill that will allow offshore drilling if:

Incentives for renewables are made.
Offshore drilling is limited to certain areas.
Oil companies have a "use or lose" plan for the land we have already given them.

The republicans are against it, the democrats are for it. Seems like a clear example of republicans "give me what I want" attitude."

Straight up lie. How about you look at what the republicans are saying is that DEMOCRATS WROTE THIS BILL BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND DID NOT LET REPUBLICANS PUT ANY INPUT ONTO THE BILL. THis is how the "compromising" democratic congress has been operating for 2 years hence the large number of fillibusters.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

basementfrog,

Thank you for posting the facts about Tax fraud.

Seems like Cryos was wrong again. I wonder what he will cry about this time. Maybe you spelled a few words wrong and therefore the whole comment must be a lie.

I am done here, Cryos is wrong, and it has been proven too many times.

You should just give up, vote for you idiot McCain, and eccept the tax breaks you will get when Obama is president.

When Obama goes down in history as the "president who save America" I hope you tell your kids how wrong you were.

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

"Currently, the republican agenda works to place the cost of health insurance on the backs of those making the least and removing this burden from corporations and replace public schools with private corporations (think Freddie Mac and Fannie May)"

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were started by democrats and heavily contributed to democrats. Obama, Dodd and Clinton were 3 of the biggest beneficiaries. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are at the root of the financial problems since they allowed the other firms to make bad loans for PC reasons like minority home ownership and promised to underwrite and support those loans.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

"LMAO. So it's republicans fault that Obama votes party line 97% of the time? Nice. Democrats being "open to ideas" is not modern liberals; that is classic liberals."

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Democrats try to compromise, and Republicans will not budge.

Look at the bill about offshore drilling.

Republicans want it becuase Oil lobbyists pay them too.

Democrats do not want it because they know it will not lower prices, will increase global warming, and will ruin out coast.

So a BIPARTISAN group of senators writes a bill that will allow offshore drilling if:

Incentives for renewables are made.
Offshore drilling is limited to certain areas.
Oil companies have a "use or lose" plan for the land we have already given them.

The republicans are against it, the democrats are for it. Seems like a clear example of republicans "give me what I want" attitude.

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

"Here's some education for you on TaxFraud - http://www.irsfraud.net/tax-fraud/

Here's some snipperts
- According to a recent Harvard University study, U.S. companies avoided paying tax on nearly $300 billion in income in 1998.”

I just scanned the article and it lists lots of accusations but very few conclusions or specifics. There are some companies like Enron that did skirt around taxes but the majority pay near the nominal rates. The article conceded much of that $300 billion figure comes from a loss of stock value from revelations that the company is under investigation. In other words the company is under investigation for say $1 billion in tax liabilities and by losing stock the government loses another $10 billion.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

TAX FACTS

Warren Buffett has famously said, “if there is a class war in America, my side is winning.” In his annual letter to shareholders this year, the billionaire investment guru urged corporations to pony up on taxes, saying, "We hope our taxes continue to rise in the future—it will mean we are prospering—but we also hope that the rest of corporate America antes up along with us.”

FACTS:

In 2004, tax fraud was estimated at $311 billion a year, more than the entire budget for Medicare.

Most cheaters go unpunished. What’s worse, the legal tax system is rigged to favor rich people and large corporations at the expense of ordinary citizens and small businesses.

If tax dodging were a business, it would be the nation’s largest corporation. The current $311 billion tax gap is the equivalent of the total income taxes paid annually by all individuals and families earning less than $75,000.

If we simply collected taxes that cheaters are withholding from the system, we would have enough to give a free college education to every child in America, or to provide health insurance for small business employees, or to cut social security taxes in half.

It amounts to more money than we spent for Medicare in 2003, almost as much as the Defense budget in the same year, and almost enough to pay this year’s deficit of $403 billion.

Large corporations and rich individuals have greater opportunities to cheat – by understating income or shipping money to foreign tax havens, by inflating deductions or claiming expenses that never existed, or by speculating in the stock market and then not reporting the gains.
People with a job or a pension have no similar opportunity to lie about income or evade taxes.

As their biggest donors turned into the biggest tax cheaters, politicians have reacted by handcuffing the tax police. Congress has consistently under-funded IRS enforcement efforts and computer upgrades that would catch more tax dodgers.

Even when everybody abides by the law, middle-income households pay more taxes than rich ones. And politicians keep handing out tax favors to their campaign contributors – at our expense.

A tax system favoring the rich fuels the growing concentration of wealth in America – and therefore threatens our economic growth and even our democracy.

Middle class spending is the growth engine in a free market economy, and when taxes rob the middle class in favor of the rich, the economy shuts down.

Huge fortunes also produce political power that is hard to control. That’s why all modern democracies use their tax laws to prevent excessive concentration of wealth. And that’s why we need a fair taxes campaign in America.

In this election year, both candidates are certain to say a lot of things about taxes. But neither of them is likely to talk about fraud, favoritism and abuse of power.

In the year 2000, at the height of the last economic boom, IRS data shows that on average, the richest 400 taxpayers each had taxable income of $151 million, but these 400 taxpayers paid 27% of their income in federal, state, and local taxes.

All other taxpayers had average taxable income of only $34,600, and yet their tax burden was 40%.

“Since 1980, America’s elected officials have turned a reasonably fair tax code into one crafted for the benefit of those who give the largest campaign contributions, enjoy the greatest access, hire the most influential lobbyists, or otherwise exercise power beyond that enjoyed by average citizens.”

In 1965, individual taxpayers paid 66% of all US income taxes, and corporations paid about a third. But by 2000, the corporate share had dropped to 18%.

Not since 1929 have so few people controlled so much of the wealth in our country. Between 1970 and 2000 average annual income for the top 13,400 households in America increased from $3.6 million to nearly $24 million. That’s a staggering 538% increase. These 13,400 households account for just .01% of the population.

At the same time, the average income for 90% of US households actually fell from $27,060 to $27,035.

Between 1990 and 2000, the average CEO pay went up by 571% and corporate profits grew by 93% while worker pay barely stayed ahead of inflation.

Historians point out that more people moved up into the middle class during the 1950s and 1960s – and American wealth was much less concentrated – when the top income tax rate was 91%, impacting salaries and capital gains equally.

According to IRS data for 2000, most American households earned 70% of their income from work and only 10% from capital gains. But in the highest tax brackets, the situation is completely reversed.

The Bush budget for 2005 cuts another $6 billion in federal support to states, and yet public investment in education, job training, child care, the environment, energy, and research is already less than half what it was during the 1960s and 1970s.

Prosperity that was supposed to ‘trickle down’ has instead flowed straight uphill.
Currently, the republican agenda works to place the cost of health insurance on the backs of those making the least and removing this burden from corporations and replace public schools with private corporations (think Freddie Mac and Fannie May – as long as they make money its private, when such a system begins to crumble its the taxpayers turn to pick up the bill; the new capitalism.)

Posted by: basementfrog | September 19, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

"Tim this and the rest of your post provide a bunch of rhetorical BS put up by liberals with no proof. How about you give ANY links that show companies tax liabilities instead of parroting empty talking points. I guess I see why you think you win arguments. You think you can just post non-sensical BS with "omg legions of accountants and attorneys for corporate welfare" and it counters hard statistics like actual tax rates. Once again you show ignorance in economics and I'm not going to waste time typing unless you can actually come up with something factually based."

SO when you are wrong, and you can't argue the truth, you say that I am not backing up my facts enough. That is an easy way to get me back on the defensive WITHOUT ACTUALLY DEBATING ANYTHING.

The truth is that America has the highest corporate tax, does not have the highest corporate tax income.

Are you saying:

X=X+2?

Go to http://www.cbpp.org/4-9-02sfp.htm and find out for yourself that you are wrong.

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

"It only makes me think that REPUBLICANS are stubborn and selfish, and they are the ones that are not working across the table with Obama. Democrats are open to opinions, that what being liberal is, and they will work across the isle.

It is a two way street. If I am willing to trade with you whenever, and you are not willing to trade with me, you could argue that I do not trade to you as much as you trade to me, BECAUSE I AM WILLING AND YOU ARE NOT"

LMAO. So it's republicans fault that Obama votes party line 97% of the time? Nice. Democrats being "open to ideas" is not modern liberals; that is classic liberals.

Modern liberals have replaced open mindedness and independance with "unity" IE groupthink; think our way which is the only right way. Independance and open mindedness has been lost to most liberals.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Cryos wrote - "I'd like to you list examples of "corporate welfare and their total tax liability." For example did you know Exxon alone pays more taxes than the lower 50% of income tax paid by citizens"

Ah, So the truth comes out. I see that drunk the Rush Limbaugh/Hannity Kool Aid.

Here's some education for you on TaxFraud - http://www.irsfraud.net/tax-fraud/

Here's some snipperts
- According to a recent Harvard University study, U.S. companies avoided paying tax on nearly $300 billion in income in 1998.”

Enron you say ?

- The conclusion is that in recent years, more and more corporations operating in the United States have come to rely on tax dodging rather than the actual sale of products and services in order to achieve healthy profits.

- Tyco and Enron may have been the masters, but it’s not just corporate rogues that have taken tax games to new extremes. After all, Enron Corp. modeled its massive tax department on that of General Electric Co. (GE ) and a host of other big companies, according to a recent Senate committee report. Tech companies like Microsoft (MSFT ), Cisco Systems (CSCO ), and Compaq Computer (HPQ ) proved adroit at shrinking their tax bills in the ’90s through many means. Claiming unfair competition from lower-taxed overseas competitors, manufacturers have taken steps, too. "

- Recent estimates suggest that the US federal authorities lose some US$170 billion (Euro 143 bn) annually to corporate tax avoidance, and this is in addition to the US$85 billion (Euro 71 bn) lost to the Treasury as a result of tax shelter abuse by wealthy individuals.


Look , I am not against coporations being successful. I like capitalism too. But stop the phony outrage that the Govt. is against the corporations. the corporations have tons of lawyers and lobbyists to take care of themselves. Its the people that have no one working for them.

Posted by: Fido | September 19, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

"You used alot of flashy numbers to basicly say "poor people can not support the country, only rich people can." So in a country that help make you rich, WHY NOT HELP THE COUNTRY IN RETURN?"

Your math was pretty amusing. People are "helping the country in return" however there needs to be a reasonable scale so there is incentive and capital to reinvest. If you go to far with overtaxing wealth the corporations and rich are going to tell you to shove it and move their operations to countries that are smart and support business and investment. Then what are all the groveling poor going to do? You fail to see that your type of economics are widely used; in 3rd world countries and that's why they will remain 3rd world.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"Actually the bill sponsorships are listed only since Obama has been in the senate. Yes 55 versus 13 is VERY significant. It means 55% of the co-sponsors of McCains bills have been democrats (ie more democrats than republicans even) and only 13% of Obama's have been republicans.

I guess statistics like this don't stack up to talking points though."

These doesn't prove anything.

It only makes me think that REPUBLICANS are stubborn and selfish, and they are the ones that are not working across the table with Obama. Democrats are open to opinions, that what being liberal is, and they will work across the isle.

It is a two way street. If I am willing to trade with you whenever, and you are not willing to trade with me, you could argue that I do not trade to you as much as you trade to me, BECAUSE I AM WILLING AND YOU ARE NOT.

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"I'd like to you list examples of "corporate welfare and their total tax liability." For example did you know Exxon alone pays more taxes than the lower 50% of income tax paid by citizens?"

Please do not try to argue mathamatics with someone who has a math minor.

If the citizens of the "lower 50%" pay 30% on there income, when there income is FAR FAR less then Exxon, it does not amount to alot.

Exxon, on the other hand, makes billions in taxable income. I would imagine that taxing Exxon 10% of their income would be similar to taxing poor people 40%.

Example.

Exxon makes, say, 10,000,000,000 a year. (grossly underestimated.)

20% of that is 2,000,000,000 dollars. 2 BILLION DOLLARS.

"* The poorest 50 percent of the American population collectively held 2.5 percent of the wealth, down from 3.0 percent in 1989."

and

"The family net worth cutoffs referenced above are:

99th percentile at $6,006,000
95th percentile at $1,393,000
90th percentile at $827,600
50th percentile at $92,900"

So the average person in the lowest 50% is about half of 92k, or 46k a year.

46k a year, times 20% is $9200 a year in taxes.

So, it would take 217,391 poor people's taxes to make up for the amount of tax received from Exxon.

The problem is not the tax percentage that you are argueing, the problem is 20% of nothing is NOTHING. 20% of BILLIONS is BILLIONS.

You used alot of flashy numbers to basicly say "poor people can not support the country, only rich people can." So in a country that help make you rich, WHY NOT HELP THE COUNTRY IN RETURN?

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"So McCain in his 27 or so years of experience in congress has taken a few bi-partisan positions. 55 and 13 ? And that's a big deal ? The guy was more often on the wrong side of many legislations. "

Actually the bill sponsorships are listed only since Obama has been in the senate. Yes 55 versus 13 is VERY significant. It means 55% of the co-sponsors of McCains bills have been democrats (ie more democrats than republicans even) and only 13% of Obama's have been republicans.

I guess statistics like this don't stack up to talking points though.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

"If America has the SECOND HIGHEST tax rate for corporations, why do we recieve tax income from corporations LOWER them most every country?"

Tim this and the rest of your post provide a bunch of rhetorical BS put up by liberals with no proof. How about you give ANY links that show companies tax liabilities instead of parroting empty talking points. I guess I see why you think you win arguments. You think you can just post non-sensical BS with "omg legions of accountants and attorneys for corporate welfare" and it counters hard statistics like actual tax rates. Once again you show ignorance in economics and I'm not going to waste time typing unless you can actually come up with something factually based.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"Since bipartisanship is one of Obama's core platforms and he claims McCain is not a reformer how do you explain this?

washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/"

So McCain in his 27 or so years of experience in congress has taken a few bi-partisan positions. 55 and 13 ? And that's a big deal ? The guy was more often on the wrong side of many legislations.

And more, Now McCain is against some of the bi-partisan bills he set forth. He has no principles or discipline. Yes, he is a maverick, a crazy one .

McCain has an incessant need to fight against something or someone, not because of principles, but because of the adrenaline rush. Yet, he doesn't have the discipline to follow through much too. He is already out attacking the next wind mill.

Posted by: Fido | September 19, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

"Many , many US companies get huge tax breaks, tax credit for a variety of BS written in the tax code to help them. In effect they re-coup a lot of their tax burden with these rules and other loop holes. There are so many different subsidies that the WTO consistently raises concern.

In any case, US companies are still the largest and most successful firms in the world (inspite of "tax burden" ). SO its not like the system has not worked for them. Corporate influence in legislation is huge and they make sure they are well taken care of. No need for the crocodile tears. They are successful and I am happy for that, but I don't see them as victims at all."

So the truth comes out. You basically think "well yeah they pay a lot of taxes but they have a lot of money so can afford to pay more." That is just ignorant to economics.

The WTO doesn't raise concerns as much with american companies as foreign companies. I implore you to read up on how other countries SUBSIDIZE their businesses to keep them in the black, buy stocks, and give them low interest loans. 1/4 of Volkswagon is owned by the German state of Saxony for instance. It appears you have fallen prey to the democrats' stategy of killing american businesses meanwhile foreign businesses continue to be supported by their governments.

I'd like to you list examples of "corporate welfare and their total tax liability." For example did you know Exxon alone pays more taxes than the lower 50% of income tax paid by citizens?

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Most of the comments here is what I call nit-picking. The GOP has rapped this country and the Corps. will continue to do it, since noonme has the balls to stop Corp. and make them payup!

As an aside I purchased 4 chairs in WAL MART at$20. PER CHAIR. wENT BACK 5 DAYS LATER AND wAL MART raised the price to $24. per chair. That amounts to over 20% increase an item in 5 days. I received a form letter from Wal Mart Home Office and it just about said nicely "TOO BAD TOOTS"
nOTHING TO DO WITH BILLIOS OF $$, BUT WHERE IS THIS COUNTRY GOING AND WHO WILL BE ABLE TO HELP?' CERTAINLY NOT mCcAIN AND pALIN

Posted by: lynn parker. | September 19, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

"Tim in your infinite wisdom please explain how you can "cut taxes" for someone who pays 0 taxes?"

Basic Math:

ZER0 X .95(5% off taxes) = ZERO

Again, you avoid the facts, and you inroduce your own reality to try to explain that you are not ignorant. I know you can not argue that 95% of Americans that pay taxes will lower taxes next year when Obama is president, so you instead argue simantics. You are sad.

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

I agree with all those people who don't want to pay taxes. Let the corporations do it and give all the profits to the rest of us.

Over the course of 2007, Palin fought to raise taxes on oil companies. As fuel prices skyrocketed for the lower 49, Palin complained the state wasn't getting its share of the windfall. She raised taxes on oil profits. The increase amounted to $1.6-billion annually more for the state. Thanks to the addition of these new taxes, that is double the amount it received the year before.

On Aug. 7, 2008, the Alaska Legislature approved a measure she promoted that would send $1,200 to every Alaskan who qualifies. That comes to about $741-million for state residents.

The administration of Alaska's governor Sarah Palin now gives $1,200 to every single Alaskan to help them pay for gas. In addition, each resident will receive an annual dividend of $2,000 from an oil-wealth savings account.

Think what a family of 7 could do with that money (Gov. Palin has 7 members in her family) that means for every family an additional $22,400.00. WOW, who needs a job!

That's a fancy way of describing wealth redistribution, i.e., downright communism.

That is real change we can believe in. Will she do the same for the Lower 48 states?

Well, in my state I want to know why Arnold Schwarzenegger hasn't got those big fact checks from the oil companies for every citizen of California. What's wrong with him? Common Arnie, get us on that gravy train, too.

Lunch can be free and you can eat it too.

Posted by: basementfrog | September 19, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

I agree with the people who don't want to pay taxes.

Who wants to bail out all these financial instutions? and do away with FDIC as well.

And those soldiers in Iraq. Screw them. Who want those welfare babies on our back?

And your child's education, pay it yourself, ya lazy bumb, for all the tax money your not going to have to pay.

And pay your own medical costs as well.

Besides, we don't need a goverment or police or firement either.

Screw America, don't pay a thing. Especially if you make over $250,000; you're part of a special class.

Posted by: basementfrog | September 19, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

"Once again your lack of economic knowledge shows. The US corporate tax rate is 35% the 2nd highest in the world. Most american corporations have a total tax liability between 35%-40% when you factor in state and local taxes along with tax credits/exemptions. "Corporate welfare" is very limited and most corporations that "pay zero" are individuals that incorporate self run small businesses. It is easy to incorporate yourself I know a couple people that are."

So riddle me this batman, If America has the SECOND HIGHEST tax rate for corporations, why do we recieve tax income from corporations LOWER them most every country?

"The nation’s corporations were estimated to pay less than15 percent of their net income in federal taxes last year, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a widely respected non-partisan research organization."

Because:

"the federal corporate tax rate is 35 percent, but few large corporations pay anywhere near that amount. Armies of corporate lobbyists, tax attorneys, and accountants have won new laws and mined the existing tax code for clever deductions and tax credits that have dramatically reduced the tax rate of America’s largest businesses."

I do beleive that this is EXACTLY what I was talking about. Americans have the HIGHEST tax rate for corporations, but the largest businesses can AFFORD to pay LAWYERS to right of MOST of the taxes. That is why McDonalds pays lower tax rates then mom+pop hamburger stands. THAT IS WHY OBAMA CAN HELP NEW BUSINESSES BY MAKEING CORPORATE TAX A FIXED RATE AND REMOVING LOOPHOLES.

Do you understand or should I educate you some more?

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Cryos wrote - ""Exactly, they can not compete in todays standards. This is because the current administration allows high paid lawyers to find loopholes so that the CORPORATIONS PAY ZERO TAXES"

Once again your lack of economic knowledge shows. The US corporate tax rate is 35% the 2nd highest in the world. Most american corporations have a total tax liability between 35%-40% when you factor in state and local taxes along with tax credits/exemptions"

How naive to oversimplify and cherry pick small details and amplify them as root causes. And you pride yourself of your education.

Many , many US companies get huge tax breaks, tax credit for a variety of BS written in the tax code to help them. In effect they re-coup a lot of their tax burden with these rules and other loop holes. There are so many different subsidies that the WTO consistently raises concern.

In any case, US companies are still the largest and most successful firms in the world (inspite of "tax burden" ). SO its not like the system has not worked for them. Corporate influence in legislation is huge and they make sure they are well taken care of. No need for the crocodile tears. They are successful and I am happy for that, but I don't see them as victims at all.

Posted by: fido | September 19, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

So I would like to see people's comments on bipartisanship. It is proven by the facts McCain is MUCH more bipartisan in reality. Since bipartisanship is one of Obama's core platforms and he claims McCain is not a reformer how do you explain this?

washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Tim in your infinite wisdom please explain how you can "cut taxes" for someone who pays 0 taxes?

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

"So you are saying a politician LISTENED TO THE PEOPLE, REALIZED HE WAS INCORRECT, and then FIX THE PROBLEM? My god! What is this country coming too? Politicians are actually listening and helping Americans?"

You know it's funny when McCain does this its "flipflopping" or "he was naive." Why does this not apply now?

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

That is no spin; nice try though. You can't cut 0. In my opinion NO ONE should get money back from the government you should just be able to make your income tax liability zero.

LOL, "there is no spin" but I will take this arguement that is absolutely true and change it slightly, not spin it but rotate it, and make it look like it is not true completely based of trivial facts that mean nothing.

Way to SPIN the definition of SPIN.

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

"Exactly, they can not compete in todays standards. This is because the current administration allows high paid lawyers to find loopholes so that the CORPORATIONS PAY ZERO TAXES"

Once again your lack of economic knowledge shows. The US corporate tax rate is 35% the 2nd highest in the world. Most american corporations have a total tax liability between 35%-40% when you factor in state and local taxes along with tax credits/exemptions. "Corporate welfare" is very limited and most corporations that "pay zero" are individuals that incorporate self run small businesses. It is easy to incorporate yourself I know a couple people that are.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Cryos has so many arguments to debate with, I garrentee he will pick ones that he thinks he can win and avoid the ones where he knows he is wrong.

Besides, all he can do is complain about Obama. He obviously doesn't know anything about McCain's economic plan or he wouldn't complain about Obama's.

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

"Cryos wrote - "This is a FLAT OUT LIE. HOW CAN YOU LOWER TAXES ON 30% OF THE POPULATION THAT PAY ZERO?"

Another specious spin argument. Even if they pay no taxes, they would get a tax credit."

That is no spin; nice try though. You can't cut 0. In my opinion NO ONE should get money back from the government you should just be able to make your income tax liability zero.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

"Nice response to a flat out lie. Change the subject to McCain because the class warfare strategy can't acknowledge it is actually just providing more hidden welfare."

I never changed the subject, you called me out on a gaff. I explained that you can take the facts the wrong way, just like McCain does everyday.

You are the one changing the subject from the argument that I am lying to the arguement about McCain.

The truth is Obama will lower taxes on 95% of Americans, if you already don't pay taxes the OBVIOUSLY you can't pay less.

Way to take a fact, throw mud(spin) at it, and try to pretend it is now incorrect.

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

"Ctyos wrote - "I assume you include Obama on the church issue. Of the small amount of money he contributed to charity a lot went to his racist church."

Or is it all the right wing fundamentalist churches that hate Jews and all the other races and actively promote intolerance. Yes, the same kind of Churches that McCain was courting for endorsements and support."

Actually it appears you do not understand a lot of "fundamental" christian philosophy. Although some are anti-semetic the majority believe Jews are "god's chosen people." I'm agnostic by the way.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

I would love to understand, in plain English, what we have accomplished for the American people by having the Feds. bolster the Stock Market.

Sounds to me like the whole mess is a coverup for a FALSE ECONOMY. How does the average person benefit? and who pays the Fed Government back all these Billions of $$$. and why did this horrible situation
come about!

Posted by: LYNN PARKER | September 19, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Cryos wrote - "This is a FLAT OUT LIE. HOW CAN YOU LOWER TAXES ON 30% OF THE POPULATION THAT PAY ZERO?"

Another specious spin argument. Even if they pay no taxes, they would get a tax credit.

Posted by: Fido | September 19, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

"increased cost of energy from extremist environmentalist energy policy will take that couple of grand pretty quickly."

The increase cost of energy that wa caused by the war in Iraq, deregulation of corporation, and allowance of future speculation? Yeah, Obama will fix this in less then 10 years by implementing incentives on renewables.

"Small business cannot compete with corporate efficiency in a number of areas so your notion of "small business picking up the slack" will work in some sectors but not in many others."

Exactly, they can not compete in todays standards. This is because the current administration allows high paid lawyers to find loopholes so that the CORPORATIONS PAY ZERO TAXES. Whatever corporation can afford the lawyers and lobbyists, gets the tax breaks, which cause more net profit. Obama is going to fix BOTH of these loopholes as well.

"Oh and Obama only brought up the small business issue once people called him out on the table that small businesses file as individuals much of the time so would fall into the $250K category. Apparently he didn't know this so had to adjust his tax policy. I guess it makes sense since very few liberal politicians are businessman and the majority are lawyers who are focused on taking other people's money."

So you are saying a politician LISTENED TO THE PEOPLE, REALIZED HE WAS INCORRECT, and then FIX THE PROBLEM? My god! What is this country coming too? Politicians are actually listening and helping Americans?

That must be a huge problem for conservatives that want things to stay the same.

(Sometimes I spell things wrong, I assume that you can figure out what I am trying to say.)

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

""You are wrong. Obama will lower taxes on 95% of Americans(who pay taxes)."

This is a FLAT OUT LIE. HOW CAN YOU LOWER TAXES ON 30% OF THE POPULATION THAT PAY ZERO?

Happy now? and i bet you defend McCain when he compeletly screws up countries like mexico and spain.

You spin truth to look like lies, and lies to look like truth"

Nice response to a flat out lie. Change the subject to McCain because the class warfare strategy can't acknowledge it is actually just providing more hidden welfare.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Ctyos wrote - "I assume you include Obama on the church issue. Of the small amount of money he contributed to charity a lot went to his racist church."

Or is it all the right wing fundamentalist churches that hate Jews and all the other races and actively promote intolerance. Yes, the same kind of Churches that McCain was courting for endorsements and support.

Posted by: Fido | September 19, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

"It is obvious that you do not have the amount of education that I have, so please do not say that I am uneducated. You bring up the point that the rich will pass the taxes to the poor. Well you are wrong. With Obama's economic plan, middle class people will prospur, so much that they will be able to start their own businesses. These businesses will complete fairly because of Obama's tax incentives for new companys and companies that keep labor inside the US.

So when the corporate elite try to raise the prices of their products to pass on the taxes, smaller companies will be there to take their sales. It common sense, can you think deeper then the surface?"

It is painfully obvious your "education" didnt include microeconomics or macroeconomics. So did your 9th grade education teach you to spell prosper prospur?

The middle class gets thrown a bone for a couple grand. Maybe in your low income world that means "prosper" but a couple grand is nothing especially since the increased cost of energy from extremist environmentalist energy policy will take that couple of grand pretty quickly.

Small business cannot compete with corporate efficiency in a number of areas so your notion of "small business picking up the slack" will work in some sectors but not in many others.

Oh and Obama only brought up the small business issue once people called him out on the table that small businesses file as individuals much of the time so would fall into the $250K category. Apparently he didn't know this so had to adjust his tax policy. I guess it makes sense since very few liberal politicians are businessman and the majority are lawyers who are focused on taking other people's money.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

"You are wrong. Obama will lower taxes on 95% of Americans(who pay taxes)."

This is a FLAT OUT LIE. HOW CAN YOU LOWER TAXES ON 30% OF THE POPULATION THAT PAY ZERO?

Happy now? and i bet you defend McCain when he compeletly screws up countries like mexico and spain.

You spin truth to look like lies, and lies to look like truth.

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

"You are wrong. Obama will lower taxes on 95% of Americans."

This is a FLAT OUT LIE. HOW CAN YOU LOWER TAXES ON 30% OF THE POPULATION THAT PAY ZERO?

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

"TIm it is obvious from your posts you subscribe to greed based politics so I'm not going to bother debating on economic policy. You obviously can't comprehend economics beyond simple surface tax statistics like simple facts that businesses and a lot of "rich" people simply pass their taxes on down and the middle class is the one that suffers. The bottom feeders are the only real beneficiaries of the Obama tax plan. You are the perfect example of why democratic' class warfare works so well; because there is a large uneducated, useless underclass that knows they will go nowhere in life and are jealous of anyone that can."

It is obvious that you do not have the amount of education that I have, so please do not say that I am uneducated. You bring up the point that the rich will pass the taxes to the poor. Well you are wrong. With Obama's economic plan, middle class people will prospur, so much that they will be able to start their own businesses. These businesses will complete fairly because of Obama's tax incentives for new companys and companies that keep labor inside the US.

So when the corporate elite try to raise the prices of their products to pass on the taxes, smaller companies will be there to take their sales. It common sense, can you think deeper then the surface?

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

"I don't think any rational person would think that donating 10 percent of your salary to a church every year and hoping that some of it finds its way to people in need is the same as giving it to organizations who directly help those in need.

Let's see your sources on this."

I assume you include Obama on the church issue. Of the small amount of money he contributed to charity a lot went to his racist church.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Hey Tim you're taking the "same as Bush" approach.

Do you assert Obama is more bipartisan? If so please look at this article which made an analysis off facts like voting records and bill sponsorship and explain it. Of course this article didn't make it to the MSM but I bet if the results were different it would have.

washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

"when democrats across all income levels volunteer less time and money to charity than republicans..."

Does that include rightwingers' contributions to churches? If so, I'd argue that there isn't really a disparity at all. I don't think any rational person would think that donating 10 percent of your salary to a church every year and hoping that some of it finds its way to people in need is the same as giving it to organizations who directly help those in need.

Let's see your sources on this.

Posted by: castanea | September 19, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

AT A TIME WHEN MOST AVERAGE AMERICANS CAN'T EVEN AFFORD THEIR OWN DEBT - OBAMA INTENDS TO SADDLE THEM WITH MORE.

SWELL. LET ME DIG DEEPER AND SEE IF I CAN'T AFFORD MORE TAXES, BARACK.

TAX THE RICH? THEY'RE ONLY KIDDING, PEOPLE. THEIR PROGRAMS MEAN EVERYONE WHO WORKS PAYS MORE TAXES. CHICAGO POLITICIANS GENERALLY LIE. BET YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT.

OH AND BTW WORLD - HOW DO U LIKE THE CHICAGO-STYLE SLASH AND BURN POLITICS? OBAMA DIDN'T WIN HIS LAST ELECTION. HE HAD HIS OPPONENT KNOCKED CLEAN OFF THE BALLOT! lol


Loud Mouth Asshat,

You are wrong. Obama will lower taxes on 95% of Americans. You probably don't know this because you are uneducated and politically ignorant. Your information probably comes from 30s McCain commericals that are PROVEN lies by factcheck.org. Please stop spreading the lies that you are too dim to realize are incorrect.

Average Tax return net change next year per president(FROM CNN ECONOMISTS):

.............MCCAIN .......OBAMA
Income......Avg. tax bill....Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M ...-$269,364 ..+$701,885
$603K and up .-$45,361 ..+$115,974
$227K-$603K ..-$7,871....+$12,000
$161K-$227K ..-$4,380 ...-$2,789
$112K-$161K ..-$2,614 ...-$2,204
$66K-$112K ...-$1,009 ...-$1,290
$38K-$66K ....-$319 .....-$1,042
$19K-$38K ....-$113 .....-$892
Under $19K ...-$19 ......-$567

This is the REAL tax return change for next year. TAKE NOTE that Obama will have LESS TAXES FOR EVERYONE that makes under 112k thousand a year, and EVERYONE that makes under 250k a year will STILL SEE LOWER TAXES THEN THIS YEAR.

You may now be asking yourself, "how will he pay for all these tax breaks when the government is so far in debt."

THE ANSWERS ARE AT WWW.BARACKOBAMA.COM.

STOP BEING A LAZY SCRUB AND GO READ THEM YOURSELF. IT IS YOUR AMERICAN DUTY.

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

TIm it is obvious from your posts you subscribe to greed based politics so I'm not going to bother debating on economic policy. You obviously can't comprehend economics beyond simple surface tax statistics like simple facts that businesses and a lot of "rich" people simply pass their taxes on down and the middle class is the one that suffers. The bottom feeders are the only real beneficiaries of the Obama tax plan. You are the perfect example of why democratic' class warfare works so well; because there is a large uneducated, useless underclass that knows they will go nowhere in life and are jealous of anyone that can.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

"Since all Americans can voluntarity pay more taxes under the current system to help reduce the national debt, we should get an immediate accounting of how much patriotic men like Joe Biden and Barack Hussein Obama have been paying into this fund."

Right on the mark I was about to make this remark. I love how liberals love to spout about our "obligation to help others" and now "being patriotic" when democrats across all income levels volunteer less time and money to charity than republicans and never volunteer taxes.

Liberals really do like telling everyone else how to spend their money while considering themselves exempt. I guess though democratic politicians' professions explain a lot of their politics since the majority of democratic politicians are lawyers. Lawyers dont come up with any good ideas themselves but are good at pointing out wrongs other people do and redistributing money.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

AT A TIME WHEN MOST AVERAGE AMERICANS CAN'T EVEN AFFORD THEIR OWN DEBT - OBAMA INTENDS TO SADDLE THEM WITH MORE.

SWELL. LET ME DIG DEEPER AND SEE IF I CAN'T AFFORD MORE TAXES, BARACK.

TAX THE RICH? THEY'RE ONLY KIDDING, PEOPLE. THEIR PROGRAMS MEAN EVERYONE WHO WORKS PAYS MORE TAXES. CHICAGO POLITICIANS GENERALLY LIE. BET YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT.

OH AND BTW WORLD - HOW DO U LIKE THE CHICAGO-STYLE SLASH AND BURN POLITICS? OBAMA DIDN'T WIN HIS LAST ELECTION. HE HAD HIS OPPONENT KNOCKED CLEAN OFF THE BALLOT! lol

Posted by: chicagopearl | September 19, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

"Yeah I guess if you already pay 0 taxes and someone promises you more free handouts it is superior."

And if you pay taxes on $249,999 income is is far superior. In fact it is superior for more reasons then just tax relief. The economy can not run, as proven in the last few days, under the trickle down politics that McCain wants to continue.

Your buddy McCain said that in order to fix corporations we need to implement more regulation and have less government.

That is like saying an orange is orange in color but not that orange in color looking.

You are voting for a liar, or he is a moron. Take your pick.

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

"I love the tactics the liberals take against JakeD on these threads. I don't always agree with him but it must really upset you all how he bases most posts on common sense, logic and reason. It's obvious you can't counter a lot of his points since you have to resort to things like impersonating his name."

You can say that he bases his posts on common sense and that we can't counter it. But you can not prove your statement because I've debated JakeD on his logic before and found it flawed.

Please provide some sort of example for you vague comment.

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

"Still for the poor and lower class Obama's plan is far superior "

Yeah I guess if you already pay 0 taxes and someone promises you more free handouts it is superior.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Since all Americans can voluntarity pay more taxes under the current system to help reduce the national debt, we should get an immediate accounting of how much patriotic men like Joe Biden and Barack Hussein Obama have been paying into this fund.

Oh wait, Barack's been hiding 1 million in income via offshore tax shelters?

Never mind!

Posted by: Rufus | September 19, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

I love the tactics the liberals take against JakeD on these threads. I don't always agree with him but it must really upset you all how he bases most posts on common sense, logic and reason. It's obvious you can't counter a lot of his points since you have to resort to things like impersonating his name.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

If the devil is the father of all lies, then John "Baby Arms" mcCain is the grandfather of all lies and lil Sarah is his D student liar.

Posted by: chris c | September 19, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

I love how Biden and Obama ask McCain and Palin why they won't interview with the press. Like they don't recognize the patheticly biased media has become the liberal cheerleaders. The coverage of stories is ridiculous this year MSM has lost ALL credibility.

Posted by: Cryos | September 19, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

RESIST

Whites make up only around 7% of the world population. There are perhaps 0.5 billion Whites in the entire world; for comparison, there are 1.3 billion Chinese in Red China alone and there are nearly 6 billion non-Whites on Earth. We are a tiny minority worldwide already, we are becoming minorities in our own countries, we aren’t even replacing our current small population, and yet we are expected to live with and even breed with other races? If we don’t start resisting soon, the intelligence, ingenuity, uniqueness, beauty, and true diversity of the White race — blue, green, and brown eyes, and blonde, red, and brown hair — will be lost forever.

We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children — 14 Words

CALL 574-267-5036

RESIST.COM

Posted by: resist | September 19, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Average Tax return net change next year per president(FROM CNN ECONOMISTS):

.............MCCAIN .......OBAMA
Income......Avg. tax bill....Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M ...-$269,364 ..+$701,885
$603K and up .-$45,361 ..+$115,974
$227K-$603K ..-$7,871....+$12,000
$161K-$227K ..-$4,380 ...-$2,789
$112K-$161K ..-$2,614 ...-$2,204
$66K-$112K ...-$1,009 ...-$1,290
$38K-$66K ....-$319 .....-$1,042
$19K-$38K ....-$113 .....-$892
Under $19K ...-$19 ......-$567

Obama 08! Show me the money!

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

I listened to an interview with Palin on the radio. They asked her 4X how she would mitigate criticism of her lack of foreign policy knowledge. Her response, robotic "We will be prepared to lead on January 20"...she repeated phrase 3X with no details...scary. She had nothing to say about economy, dodged a specific question on that, started talking about something else.

If Palin cannot handle unscripted questions, she is like a talking doll with stock phrases, vague sound bites that don't amount to any depth or substance. If you cannot not answer basic questions, we are in big trouble. She is not ready to sit down with world leaders, fix the economy or represent the free world. If Charlie Gibson flusters her, how can she handle the leaders of Iran, China and Russia?!

There are serious questions about her behavior as Gov. Recent demonstrations in Anchorage against Palin. People feel troopergate investigations should continue NOW. But Karl Rove and Co. have put a stop to that. Unethical, GOP should not be interfering. There must be a lot to hide, if they want to stop it so badly.

Posted by: Lana J | September 19, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

McCain's experience is 26 years of the same old politics. He voted with Bush 90% of the time in his own words. He has NO leadership experience.
Correction. McCain voted with Bush 91% of the time.

Also correction: Obama's tax plan will "only" lower taxes for 80%-85% of the public, not 95% as he claims, when you include the small business tax and tax on home sales. Still for the poor and lower class Obama's plan is far superior and for a middle class family with no business, and/or not selling their home, Obama's is far superior to McCain's which is a re-run of Bush II, more the wealthy, based on the fiction of trickle down.
The 80-85 is a range, based on people not knowing in advance if they will be moving and selling a home next year.

Also correction: McCain's health care plan will end up covering 15 million fewer people than Obama's. Also of those already covered 5 million will have to find new coverage or pay higher premium,under the McCain plan.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote


Accuracy in Media Column | By Cliff Kincaid | February 12, 2008


A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

The bill, which is item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.

A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, "In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day."

The legislation itself requires the President "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."

The bill defines the term "Millennium Development Goals" as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

The U.N. says that "The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion-or about 0.25% of their collective GNP."

In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as "the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development."

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

Obama's bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate.

The House version (H.R. 1302), sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), had only 84 co-sponsors before it was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars.

It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member. Lugar has worked with Obama in the past to promote more foreign aid for Russia, supposedly to stem nuclear proliferation, and has become Obama's mentor. Like Biden, Lugar is a globalist. They have both promoted passage of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, for example.

The so-called "Lugar-Obama initiative" was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program, also known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which was designed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. But one defense analyst, Rich Kelly, noted evidence that "CTR funds have eased the Russian military's budgetary woes, freeing resources for such initiatives as the war in Chechnya and defense modernization." He recommended that Congress "eliminate CTR funding so that it does not finance additional, perhaps more threatening, programs in the former Soviet Union." However, over $6 billion has already been spent on the program.

Another program modeled on Nunn-Lugar, the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), was recently exposed as having funded nuclear projects in Iran through Russia.

More foreign aid through passage of the Global Poverty Act was identified as one of the strategic goals of InterAction, the alliance of U.S-based international non-governmental organizations that lobbies for more foreign aid. The group is heavily financed by the U.S. Government, having received $1.4 million from taxpayers in fiscal year 2005 and $1.7 million in 2006. However, InterAction recently issued a report accusing the United States of "falling short on its commitment to rid the world of dire poverty by 2015 under the U.N. Millennium Development Goals..."

It's not clear what President Bush would do if the bill passes the Senate. The bill itself quotes Bush as declaring that "We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity." Bush's former top aide, Michael J. Gerson, writes in his new book, Heroic Conservatism, that Bush should be remembered as the President who "sponsored the largest percentage increases in foreign assistance since the Marshall Plan..."

Even these increases, however, will not be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Obama bill. A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.

Posted by: Scott | September 19, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

If McCain were Bush the neo-cons wouldn't have worked so hard to keep him from the nomination. B. Obama's record illustrates quite clearly that he is incapable of reaching across party lines. He is a puppet of the extreme left wing of the party.

Posted by: Watcher | September 19, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Oops! It early. Forgot to sign my post.

Authors and bloggers are claiming nowadays that McCain and Bush are not really the same, maybe because McCain changes his mind when the universe does not meet his expectations.

However, the Palin-McCain campaign is EXACTLY like the Cheney-Bush government in the key area of the Constitution.
Neither respect it. Palin, with the assistance of McCain's team of Cheney-Bush attorneys, have eliminated the investigation into her illicit persecution of the boss of the state troopers. None of the people who were asked by the state senate to testify are doing so.
They are claiming this is a witch hunt. No, it is an honest inquiry into her government, and the inquiry began before she was selected as VP candidate, and the vote to do so in the Alaska legislature was 14-0, bi partisan, with the GOP majority voting 8-0 and the DEMS 6-0. This is no witch hunt. It is the horrific suppression of justice, AGAIN, by the Palin-Cheney-McCain-Bush team. PS. Palin's command to her workers to use the yahoo email system backfired when someone posted her business emails on the internet. It turns out she was using yahoo to do state business and in doing so, was committing a crime. THAT CRIME is the kind of crime Cheney and Bush thrive on. Calumny, the fraud of avoiding prosecution by avoiding legal procedure, that's Palin and her email fraud.
Yes, Palin and McCain are JUST LIKE CHENEY AND BUSH when it comes to avoiding constitutional and legal requirements.
VOTE NO to the devious criminal Palin and her
side-kick, John the DE-REGULATOR.

Posted by: Bruce Becker | September 19, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Authors and bloggers are claiming nowadays that McCain and Bush are not really the same, maybe because McCain changes his mind when the universe does not meet his expectations.

However, the Palin-McCain campaign is EXACTLY like the Cheney-Bush government in the key area of the Constitution.
Neither respect it. Palin, with the assistance of McCain's team of Cheney-Bush attorneys, have eliminated the investigation into her illicit persecution of the boss of the state troopers. None of the people who were asked by the state senate to testify are doing so.
They are claiming this is a witch hunt. No, it is an honest inquiry into her government, and the inquiry began before she was selected as VP candidate, and the vote to do so in the Alaska legislature was 14-0, bi partisan, with the GOP majority voting 8-0 and the DEMS 6-0. This is no witch hunt. It is the horrific suppression of justice, AGAIN, by the Palin-Cheney-McCain-Bush team. PS. Palin's command to her workers to use the yahoo email system backfired when someone posted her business emails on the internet. It turns out she was using yahoo to do state business and in doing so, was committing a crime. THAT CRIME is the kind of crime Cheney and Bush thrive on. Calumny, the fraud of avoiding prosecution by avoiding legal procedure, that's Palin and her email fraud.
Yes, Palin and McCain are JUST LIKE CHENEY AND BUSH when it comes to avoiding constitutional and legal requirements.
VOTE NO to the devious criminal Palin and her
side-kick, John Gramm McCain the DE-REGULATOR.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

RIGHT ON KATHARINE!

Great commenting, nice logic. I see this "pass the tax to us" comment all the time when I explain that Obama will cut taxes on the middle class and help out our economy.

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Biden is talking about taxing the top 3 percent richest people in the country. If it makes them a little poorer I don't care. Palin is trying to make the case that taking money from the rich will lose jobs because the rich will just try to recoup the money by firing workers, but that is an extremely simplistic way of looking at it. The Obama/Palin plan will strengthen the Middle Class, making for more small business start-up, diversifying the market and creating more competition, which is better for the country, and actually does make the 'fundamentals' of the economy stronger. Of course the richest of the rich would rather keep their monopoly, their hegemony, and their oligarchy, but we have seen what that has done for our country. Of course MCain doesn't like it, cause he's in that 3 percent. For Palin to make this arguement shows that she is either stupid or willfully dishonest. I don't think she is stupid.

Posted by: katharine | September 19, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

"Every morning is a sunny day in the Obama camp as they figure out how they can even go lower in their attacks. First Rove was proud, but now they've gone so far even Rove is disgusted."

Please cite ONE attack that Obama has made that is not true. I think you percieve the TRUTH that Obama tells us as attacks. McCain's "attacks" are lies and spin.

At least Obama uses facts. (Look up factcheck.org for proof.)

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

"Obama is all fluff and no stuff. He's a celebrity!"

He has more stuff in his speechs, policies and facts, then anything McCain has proposed. He is a celebrity because millions of Americans like him, and like his way with words.

"I'm voting for Mccain. He's got the experience and is a proven leader!"

McCain's experience is 26 years of the same old politics. He voted with Bush 90% of the time in his own words. He has NO leadership experience.

You comment is bland, and lacking any facts. You obviously don't know much about the candidates.


Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Obama is all fluff and no stuff. He's a celebrity!

I'm voting for Mccain. He's got the experience and is a proven leader!

Posted by: JBfromFl | September 19, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

PALIN BACKED RON PAUL? http://www.veeppeek.com

YESTERDAY MORE CAME OUT ABOUT SARAH PALINS ALLEDGED AFFIAR. http://www.hotpres.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Every morning is a sunny day in the Obama camp as they figure out how they can even go lower in their attacks. First Rove was proud, but now they've gone so far even Rove is disgusted.

Posted by: Sunny Day For Obama | September 19, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. It's on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units.

As governor of Alaska , Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Her exposure to classified material may rival even Biden's and certainly by far exceeds Obama's.

She's also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security's counterterrorism plans.

Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country's defense. Given Alaska 's proximity to Russia , she may have security clearances we don't even know about.

According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets.

She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.


Posted by: walksalone | September 19, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

"Rezko, Ayres, Raines....nice company Barack"

If this is all you can talk about you have your head in the sand and you are avoiding real issues like the economy.

Wake up.

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

****************************************
Note the date on this Politico piece by Ben Smith- OF COURSE OBAMA "NEVER HEARD OF" His Advisor Franklin Raines who took $90 Million out of Fannie Mae and ran it into the ground- I'm sure donating some to Obama- stay tuned!

******************************************
July 16, 2008
Categories: Barack Obama

Advice from Raines

An ill-timed -- for Obama -- profile of former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, forced out in an accounting mess a few years ago.

The Style Section piece reports that he's recently been taking "calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

Hard to find anybody in the mortgage industry who's looking real great right now, but Fannie Mae's critics, in particular, seem to have been vindicated.


By Ben Smith 11:42 AM
******************

Rezko, Ayres, Raines....nice company Barack

Posted by: scott | September 19, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

SARAH PALIN:


When an elected official stops holding press conferences, it ain't because he's found a new way to communicate. It's because he's doesn't want to communicate.

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse


September 19, 2008
Abortions Do Sometimes Produce Live Births
By Mona Charen

Appearing on C-SPAN last weekend I mentioned that Barack Obama had opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act when he was an Illinois state senator -- a position he has attempted to deny or obfuscate ever since. The liberal blogger who appeared on the program with me erupted with indignation. She didn't deny that Obama had opposed the bill. She denied, hotly, that babies are ever born alive after an attempted abortion. Since I have actually met Gianna Jessen, who survived an attempted abortion, I invited viewers to contact me directly if they wanted evidence. My inbox has been bursting.

The denial goes very deep. Any number of e-mailers expressed their contemptuous certainty that "born alive" infants were an invention of pro-life activists. OK, enter "abortion survivors" into your browser and see what you get. Or, if you prefer a traditional media source, consult the Daily Mail in Britain. The Mail has reported that in just the past year 66 infants had been left to die after abortions in Great Britain.

When Congress was considering the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Jill Stanek and Allison Baker, two nurses at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. They described several instances in which babies who were moving and breathing after induced abortions were left to die. The committee report quoted Jill Stanek: "Mrs. Stanek testified about another aborted baby who was thought to have had spina bifida, but was delivered with an intact spine. On another occasion, an aborted baby was left to die on the counter of the Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel." The committee report also quoted Shelly Lowe, a lab technician at Bethesda North Medical Center in Cincinnati. A young woman who had undergone just the first cervix-opening phase of a partial-birth abortion gave birth in the emergency room. The doctor placed the 22-week-old baby in a specimen dish to be taken to the lab. According to the report, when Ms. Lowe "saw the baby girl in the dish she was stunned when she saw the girl gasping for air. 'I don't think I can do that,' Ms. Lowe reportedly said. 'This baby is alive.'" Lowe asked permission to hold the baby until she died. She wrapped the child she dubbed "Baby Hope" in a blanket and sang to her. Breathing room air without any other supports, Baby Hope lived for three hours.

I've received a number of letters from viewers. This one caught my eye: "I am a pediatrician. When I was a pediatric resident on a neonatal intensive care rotation, we were routinely called to ... resuscitate infants. In one instance I was called to pronounce a baby dead who had been born an hour earlier after a failed abortion. We were not called to resuscitate the baby immediately after the delivery as the intent was abortion. ... I write to attest that babies are sometimes born alive after abortion and then put aside to die."

The BAIPA was designed to ensure that in those rare cases in which a baby marked for abortion happens to survive -- that the child will be immediately accorded full human and constitutional rights. The measure passed the U.S. House by a vote 380 to 15 but was blocked in the Senate. When a "neutrality clause" was inserted to the effect that the law should not be construed to limit the scope of Roe v. Wade, the measure was passed by unanimous consent and signed into law in 2002.

At the time, Barack Obama was an Illinois state senator. An almost exact copy of the federal bill was introduced in 2001. Obama opposed it, saying, "I mean it, it would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute." Even though the baby would be completely separated from the mother. In 2003, the Illinois legislature added a neutrality clause to the bill, making it a virtual clone of the federal legislation. As chairman of the committee considering the bill, Obama again opposed it, saying, "... an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman ..."

Barack Obama is a charming and intelligent man. But there is no other way to interpret his position on BAIPA than this: A woman who chooses an abortion is entitled to a dead child no matter what. That is an abortion extremist.

Posted by: Scott | September 19, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Ya, sure... keep it simple...

More of the same, vote McCain (and I don't want to hear you complain when you lose more jobs, send more soldiers to kill and be killed, and wonder why the rich get richer and poor get poorer.)

Is Obama going to solve everything? Unlikely. But the choice is yours. Just remember Americans - you totally screwed yourselves and the rest of the world (I know, I know, you don't care about the rest of the world) with your votes in 2000 & 2004.

How anyone can actually try and defend the Republican party at this point or promise that McCain will be any different as a Republican than George Bush, is beyond the rest of us. BTW, please wake up and realize the Republican party was hijacked long ago - so if you actually believe that the current GOP stands for anything remotely "Republican" at heart, you're really being duped. "Allegory of the Cave" in full effect.

Stand up for yourselves for once and vote for something (anything) different. You certainly can't make it any worse by doing so. You might actually help make things better by simply not voting for a GOP candidate for a change. Or you can continue to go deeper down the same old road - and into the drain - which is your current trajectory. McCain will surely help you disintegrate faster that's for sure.

Posted by: Wily USA | September 19, 2008 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Why should we shrink from calling a taxpayer a patriot?

There are over 300,000,000 Americans who are challenged every day to be patriotic. How do we answer?

A lot of the time, we just express our love of country. We revere the flag. We pay attention to what our fellow citizens need. In our hometowns, we help in any way we can.

We vote in every local, state, and national election.

When our Nation is threatened, we answer the call to defend her.

With regard to countless other vital issues, the two most common patriotic acts we perform are just doing our jobs and paying our taxes.

Yes, work is a patriotic act. It means we are sharing the talent and energy of our too brief lives to produce something good for others. Working people feel the pride and satisfaction of doing that.

Yes it is patriotic to pay our taxes.

300 million Americans yearn today to help the people of Galveston and Houston and hundreds of towns in Texas and Louisiana. We can’t do it directly, but we pay our taxes so others can. We love our country.

300 million of us, regardless of our view of the war in Iraq, want nothing but safety, and health and happiness for American men and women in uniform. We love them. We pay our taxes.

We love those who have been wounded, and we want the best care for them. We can’t provide it. We pay our taxes. We love the widows and widowers and orphans of the fallen. We pay taxes to help them.

Only a small percentage of us get to go in any year to a national park. But we love those beautiful places, and we want all our fellow citizens to share them – forever. We pay our taxes.

Yesterday, a new bridge opened in Minneapolis, because all of us love the people of that city. We paid our taxes.

There are, of course, hundreds of other ways that local, state, and Federal taxpayers help each other. We ought to let them know that we appreciate their patriotism.

If Senator McCain and Governor Palin are out of touch with that sentiment, they underestimate Americans. I have to believe they pay their taxes. If they do so only out of obligation, or with pain and resentment, they underestimate themselves.

Posted by: Tom Callahan | September 19, 2008 8:10 AM | Report abuse

"Let's make this simple for all the (R)etard's if you were better off in the 90's under a Democratic president vote Democrat"

Gone are the days we would just vote"dfemocrat".Yes we were better of under Clinton but Obama is no Bill Clinton.Democrats screwed up again-picking another extreme liberal -who may even be ant-American.We cant stand by and let him screw up everything.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 7:03 AM | Report abuse

Being an Obama hopeful from Canada, I must tell you I feel sorry for her. She was used by the Republicans, just plain used. But that is there stye. They are screwed and VP Palin should have known better and refused until she had some real facts and experience about the world before running. But if you are greedy for success and feel you never make mistakes, which she is desperately trying to hide, she must now fall and hope Alaska still wants her.

Posted by: justadad55+ | September 19, 2008 6:38 AM | Report abuse

Let's make this simple for all the (R)etard's if you were better off in the 90's under a Democratic president vote Democrat. If you are better off now, or how about if you only think that the country is better off now, go ahead and vote (R)etarded. That should even be simple enough for you idiot's to understand.

Posted by: Average joe | September 19, 2008 6:16 AM | Report abuse

Bush was a C student but got his M.A., Palin was a D student and barely got a B.A.

McSame was nearly the last of his class at the naval academy.

Has anyone seen Rick Davis? Doesn't he look like Breavis? or was it Butthead?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 3:03 AM | Report abuse

I am tired of hearing all of this tax cut nonsense creates jobs. I am a project developer and I have a motion picture studio and theme park project that would CREATE 155,000 new permanent jobs across every economic sector from unskilled labor to technical and profession not only for workers in the location state but for 3 or 4 states surrounding it. I CANNOT get the investments or funding I need because over the last 8 years the Republicans and the super rich have set in place procedures and demands that only the very wealth can meet to have THEIR projects funded! They went you to GUARANTEE that they will not lose so much as a dime totally lacking an understanding of the work "INVESTMENT" which mean "to take a risk" and the higher the risk the higher the potential profit return. They insist that you must have between 10% to 20% of your own money invested in your project to have any interest. In my case 10% would amount to 650 MILLION DOLLARS! Outside of the super rich how many project small developers do you think would have that kind of money to invest in their own project? On top of all this they DEMAND that you give them at least 51% of YOUR business or your project don't get funded! Now THEY own YOUR project and once you build it up into a money making enterprise for them they will toss you out onto the street and laugh at you! Funding brokers are just as bad requiring you to pay up front fees and expenses knowing full well they cannot fund your project and simply bleeding you dry to make a nice living for themselves! This is what is wrong with America today after 8 long and horrible years of rule by the Republicans who lie like hell with this phony bit about tax cuts creating more jobs! As I said, my project would create 155,000 new jobs, stimulate the local and state economy and local business by bringing in over 8 MILLION NEW TOURISTS and the benefits go on and on! When I think of all the thousands of families I could help with these jobs and the happiness and joy I could bring to million of visitors from around the world with my project I get mad as hell at the Republicans and rich fat cats! I have been trying to find the right funding source now for some 8 years every since cowboy Bush was elected so how would YOU feel! I agree 100% with Biden and say hell yes let the rich and wealthy individuals and corporations pay their FAIR share of taxes just like everyone else!

Posted by: LTSTUDIOS | September 19, 2008 2:57 AM | Report abuse

project small developers do you think would have that kind of money to invest in their own project? On top of all this they DEMAND that you give them at least 51% of YOUR business or your project don't get funded! Now THEY own YOUR project and once you build it up into a money making enterprise for them they will toss you out onto the street and laugh at you! Funding brokers are just as bad requiring you to pay up front fees and expenses knowing full well they cannot fund your project and simply bleeding you dry to make a nice living for themselves! This is what is wrong with America today after 8 long and horrible years of rule by the Republicans who lie like hell with this phony bit about tax cuts creating more jobs! As I said, my project would create 155,000 new jobs, stimulate the local and state economy and local business by bringing in over 8 MILLION NEW TOURISTS and the benefits go on and on! When I think of all the thousands of families I could help with these jobs and the happiness and joy I could bring to million of visitors from around the world with my project I get mad as hell at the Republicans and rich fat cats! I have been trying to find the right funding source now for some 8 years every since cowboy Bush was elected so how would YOU feel! I agree 100% with Biden and say hell yes let the rich and wealthy individuals and corporations pay their FAIR share of taxes just like everyone else!

Posted by: LTSTUDIOS | September 19, 2008 2:55 AM | Report abuse

Okay so here's the deal: Obama's plan does not create higher taxes for high-income earners, what it does is not provide the same tax-breaks that they have had for the past 8 years. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they will pay more in taxes. For example, their net-taxable income may not increase if they choose to offset their earnings with larger tax-deductible contributions or they invest a portion of their earnings in tax-free investments. There are many creative ways that high income earners can deal with less tax-breaks. However, 90% of the taxpayers, those of us who don't have the luxury of offsetting earnings, need all the money we earn to feed our families, pay the mortgage, school our children, etc etc. Obama's plan will help the majority of Americans, after-all we are the economic backbone of America. If we are financially hurting, we don't spend our money buying cars, clothes, and other items of luxury. Without our spending money, many sectors of our economy will suffer. Obama's plan is the opposite of the trickle-down economics that failed in the 80's and left us with a huge budget deficit. Obama's plan builds our economy from the ground up. So you decide, if you are in the 10% minority and earn more than 250,000, vote for Bush and McCain. If not, vote for Obama and Biden, it's that simple.

Posted by: Aycee | September 19, 2008 2:35 AM | Report abuse

Palin, McCain's nurse to be doesn't have a clue. As for McCain, he's a joke even to the Republicans. Obama in a landslide & he saves America from the Sleazy Republicans.

Posted by: SadAmerican | September 19, 2008 2:20 AM | Report abuse

Taozen, please get a real take!

You can't possibly even have an IQ if you continue to spew forth the Nobama talking points like some mindless drone. Obama is an empty suit beholden to scum like Soros and dusting off the Carter, Mondale, Gore, Kerry, tired socialist crap.

The only studies you can recite with authority are from the local gay bar where you are considered brilliant!

Posted by: Prh | September 19, 2008 2:12 AM | Report abuse

prhornbeak wrote: "The little girl from Alaska changed everything when she pointed out quite simply; "Look the emperor has no clothes""

WHO has no clothes? It's the midget girl from Alaska who is hiding in the closet from reporters, journalists, and trooper-gate investigators. Before having another diarhea from your mouth, here is another trivia: studies after studies have shown that liberals have higher IQs than conservatives (that is if you know what IQ stands for).

Posted by: Taozen | September 19, 2008 1:48 AM | Report abuse

Thank you Patriot for your respectful attempts at rational discourse. I agree with all of your last points.

Posted by: Mike Robinson | September 19, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

All this talk is useless. Obama will never be elected. He is an empty suit with the 50 year old failed ideals of socialist scum like Soros and Gore. The voters in this country will sort through the leftist rants, the email hacks, the press attacks.

The choice is McCain who has actually accomplished meaningful work in his time. He is an American Hero as opposed to Obama the American Zero.

It amazes me to see the amount of fact twisting, half truth and convuluted logic that spews from the left out of sheer desperation. They will do anything, say anything for power.

They thought this election would be simple....utter a few words about Bush, four more, etc. The electorate would fold and elect Obama by a landslide.

The little girl from Alaska changed everything when she pointed out quite simply; "Look the emperor has no clothes"

So waaaaaaaaaaaaa, waaaaaaaaaaaaa, Democrats and assorted leftist crazies...another failure of socialist dogma, another election lost.

Posted by: prhornbeak | September 19, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

If voters care about self interest then republicans shouldn't get any more vote than the top 5% of population.
I hate to say most of the voters leaning republicans are less educated, poorer than their counterparts. Even the smart educated ones seem more keen to repeat the talking points than have an rational fact based decision.
The red blue divide is never going to bridge till these people stop lying to others (and themselves).

Posted by: ivy | September 19, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Palin Email Hacker is Son of Democrat Tennessee State Senator according to the FBI
David Kernell, a college student has been positively identified as the perp who hacked Sarah Palin's Yahoo account.
State Rep. Mike Kernell said today that he was aware of Internet rumors about his son being the subject of speculation that he accessed the personal e-mail of vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
Asked whether he or his son, a student at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, had been contacted by authorities investigating the break-in of Palin's account, he responded:
"Me, no."
As far as his 20-year-old son, David, he said: "I can't say. That doesn't mean he has or hasn't (been contacted by investigators."
Kernell, D-Memphis, cited the father-son relationship.
He said he had talked to his son today, but that he talks to his son regularly.
He declined further comment.

Posted by: wired | September 18, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Palin Email Hacker is Son of Democrat Tennessee State Senator

Obama's democrats broke into Palin's E-mail account according to the FBI.

Palin Email Hacker is Son of Democrat Tennessee State Senator

Bristol Palin.

David Kernell, a college student has been positively identified as the perp who hacked Sarah Palin's Yahoo account.

State Rep. Mike Kernell said today that he was aware of Internet rumors about his son being the subject of speculation that he accessed the personal e-mail of vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Asked whether he or his son, a student at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, had been contacted by authorities investigating the break-in of Palin's account, he responded:

"Me, no."

As far as his 20-year-old son, David, he said: "I can't say. That doesn't mean he has or hasn't (been contacted by investigators."

Kernell, D-Memphis, cited the father-son relationship.

He said he had talked to his son today, but that he talks to his son regularly.

He declined further comment.

Posted by: wired | September 18, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse


I am a member of the left. The left is the greatest political philosophy that was ever invented. George Washington and Abe Lincoln were members of the left. It is the ultimate American patriot position to be aligned with the left. The AIG bail-out was an action of left thinking, and it saved the asses of a lot of the dummies who think America should be lead by ignoramuses like George Bush. The un-left are the true enemies of our nation. Jon Day

Posted by: Jon Day | September 18, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

Palin seems pretty sharp and very strong.
You have to question the motivation of those who are criticizing her.

Posted by: ohiopolitico | September 18, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

"The American economy is the envy of the world, and we need to keep it that way," Bush said, conceding that "I'm not an economist" but maintaining that he sees strong basic indicators in the state of the economy. "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" George W Bush - Aug 9, 2007


"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should" John McCain - Dec 17. 2007
"Our economy, I think, still the fundamentals of our economy are strong" - John McCain - Sep 15. 2008

Does anyone see a pattern here? Are 50% of the American people really stupid enough to still support either of these two clueless idiots?

Posted by: Democrats 08 | September 18, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Well folks, it's been fun. But it is pretty late where I am.

I look forward to exchanging barbs with you all on some other post tomorrow.

For all your democrats...keep fighting the good fight.

For all you republicans...keep fighting the good fight as well.

Just don't be mad on Nov. 5th, and the 18-23 year old voters (who aren't counted in all these public polls) come out in droves. And we all know that the "kids" tend to vote for the "cool" candidate. Qualified as McCain may be, he isn't "cool" as defined by the kids. So, while the polls of registered voters (which are done over the phone...how may 18-23 year olds have land lines) my show a statistical dead heat, don't be surprised in the swing states.

And, I might be naive in asking this, but please keep the discussion about real issues about policy, not "he's a liar!" type stuff. They are all politicians. They all lie...er...take things out of context.

Good night!

Posted by: Patriot | September 18, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: scrivener | September 18, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Paige Palmer,

While I understand the intent of your post, you and all the others supporting Obama, need to remember that Obama is running against McCain, not Palin. Paying attention to Palin is what the Republicans want. It takes away from their economic record over the past 8 years. And, as recent (semi-inaccurate) polls show...the bump McCain received after the convention is now gone and back to the pre-convention June/July numbers. Palin is no longer relevant, just like Biden is not relevant. Just Obama vs McCain.

Posted by: Patriot | September 18, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Biden has said he has done 70 interviews, no one has seen all of them.

Palin gave one interview, every one has seen.

I saw one interview on Biden, where he said Hillary is more qualified and in another one he said he is not a great debator

Posted by: Kevin | September 18, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I'm an idiot. You caught me. I'm an idiot for trying to have a discussion about real issues, and responding to uneducated posters with sarcasm. Yes, I'm an idiot.

At least I'm an educated, opinionated idiot, who looks cares about real issues, and doesn't call people idiots (expect for myself, of course) because I don't agree with them.

So much for having an open discussion about tax policy in regards to the presidential campaigns.

I hate myself for doing this...

No, you're an idiot!

PS. From what I remember from grade school, you are now supposed to write "I'm not an idiot, you are an idiot!" or something similar.

Posted by: Patriot | September 18, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

We've heard the GOP talking points that Sarah Palin has the most executive experience of any of the four candidates on either ticket. We've been told she's a reformer and fiscal conservative.


This is crap. Her record as mayor of Wasilla is horrendous.


When Palin ran for governor in 2006, the Democrats vetted Palin. Perhaps if the McCain campaign had done even a modicum of political vetting, they would see their attempts to spin and lie about her tenure would not hold up under scrutiny.


Since the reckless, out-of-control spending is what McCain likes to focus on by claiming he would veto pork barrel and wasteful spending to avoid piling up further debt, let's look at what Palin did to Wasilla's debt:


Debt Service Increased 69 Percent Under Palin. In fiscal 2003 — the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget — the total government debt service was $658,662. In fiscal 1996—the year before Palin took control of the budget — the debt service was $390,385. The increase was 69 percent. [Wasilla Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2003, Table 1]


Palin Left Behind Almost $19 Million In Long-Term Debt, Compared to None Before She Was Mayor. In fiscal 2003 — the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget — the bonded long-term debt was $18,635,000. In fiscal 1996—the year before Palin took control of the budget—there was no general obligation debt. [Wasilla Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2003, Table 10]


Long-Term Debt Was $3000 Per Capita When Palin Left, Compared to None Before She Was Mayor. In fiscal 2003 — the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget—the bonded long-term debt per capita was $2,938. In fiscal 1996 — the year before Palin took control of the budget—there was no general obligation debt. [Wasilla Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2003, Table 10]


When Palin Left Office, 6.24% of Government Spending Was On Debt Service, Compared to None Before She Was Mayor. In fiscal 2003—the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget—the ratio of debt service to general government expenditures was 6.24 percent. There was no long-term debt before she took office. [Wasilla Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2003, Table 11]


Palin Signed Ordinance to Issue $15 Million in General Obligation Bonds and Increase the Sales Tax From 2 to 2.5 Percent. In 2001, Palin signed an ordinance authorizing the city to issue general obligation bonds in the principal amount of $14,700,000 to finance the acquisition and construction of park and recreation capital improvements. The ordinance also increased the sales tax from 2 to 2.5 percent and put the issue on the ballot. After it was adopted by voters, Palin signed an ordinance issuing the bonds. In 2002, Palin signed an ordinance putting the higher sales tax into effect. [Ordinance 01-55 (am), 12/10/2001; Ordinance 02-14 (sub), 4/8/2002; Ordinance 02-49, 8/12/2002]


Palin Was Accused By Stein of Overspending By Approving $5.5 Million Bond; She Replied that It Had Been Approved By Voters. "Now Stein is urging voters to turn the tables again. He’s accused Palin of overspending city money and has been particularly critical of a $ 5.5 million road and sewer bond passed last year by voters. He says the bond payments could make the city vulnerable should the economy turn down. Palin notes residents approved the bond, which she says was needed for critical road work." [Anchorage Daily News (Alaska), 10/5/99]


Palin Said the Reason for the Increased Cost of Government Was Interest on Bonds. "‘‘Sarah rode in on a conservative horse, but the actual cost of government has gone up,’’ he said. But Palin says most of the increase is due to the $ 400,000 in interest owed on the road and sewer bonds, a measure she notes the voters approved. Much of the rest is due to some positions now included in her budget that weren’t when she first took over, she said. Stein also criticized the $ 5.5 million bond package, which he said will cost too much to pay off and could make the city vulnerable should the economy turn down." [Anchorage Daily News (Alaska), 9/20/99]


Much of the extra debt and higher taxes Palin incurred for Wasilla came as a result of her decision to have the town build a sports complex. The Wall Street Journal has revealed how Palin - who is supposed to have such fabled management skills - screwed up the planning of the sports complex, thus leaving Wasilla in the poor fiscal situation it is currently in:


The only catch was that the city began building roads and installing utilities for the project before it had unchallenged title to the land. The misstep led to years of litigation and at least $1.3 million in extra costs for a small municipality with a small budget. What was to be Ms. Palin's legacy has turned into a financial mess that continues to plague Wasilla...


Litigation resulting from the dispute over Ms. Palin's sports-complex project is still in the courts, with the land's former owner seeking hundreds of thousands of additional dollars from the city.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122065537792905483.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


What had happened was that Wasilla had negotiated to buy for $126,000 a plot 0f 145 acres from the Nature Conservancy. Because the city dragged its feet without securing a signed purchase agreement, a businessman named Gary Lundgren jumped in and negotiated to buy not only an adjacent lot but the lot that the city figured it had bought. The city sued to get their portion and won. Lundren appealed and because Palin once again mismanaged the land deal, never signing the proper papers, the same judge reversed his previous ruling and granted Lundgren the land. Before the judge reversed his ruling, Palin passed a March 2002 referendum, by a vote of 306 to 286, that increased the sales tax and issued $14.7 million bond. Under the assumption that the land deal was secure, the city cleared roads and installed utilities in preparation to build. After Palin left as mayor and the town realized it had built roads but had no land, the city took 80 acres of Lundgren's land through eminent domain, which an Alaska court approved, though ordered that an arbitrator determine the appropriate price:


Last year, the arbitrator ordered the city to pay $836,378 for the 80-acre parcel, far more than the $126,000 Wasilla originally thought it would pay for a piece of land 65 acres larger. The arbitrator also determined that the city owed Mr. Lundgren $336,000 in interest. Wasilla's legal bill since the eminent domain action has come to roughly $250,000 so far, according to Mr. Klinkner, the city attorney.


The argument the Republicans want to make about Palin's superior executive experience comes down to a quantitative argument: she supposedly has more years of elective executive experience compared to Obama or Biden (or McCain, if they were honest.) However, when we compare Palin's and Obama's (and McCain's) qualitative executive experience, Obama wins hands down. Palin left her small-town in relatively enormous debt after it had been debt free before her tenure. Her mismanagement is similar to the short-sighted and reckless impulsiveness that has characterized McCain's campaign (no wonder he calls her his "soulmate.") McCain's campaign has been one of boom and bust, with one management team after another, one different, contradictory message after another. Obama, on the other hand, has run one of the most organized and tightly run campaigns in modern American political history. His ground game is astounding while McCain's is pretty much non-existent.


Palin can mock Obama's community organizing but you can bet this community organizer (Obama) is gonna kick her pathological serial lying arse (Palin) come election day.

Posted by: Paige Palmer | September 18, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Patriot - you can save yourself some typing in the future... Try typing "Idiot" instead of the lengthy "pinko-commie-liberal".

Glad to help...

Posted by: Houston Jim | September 18, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Andrew - I'm not arguing that point - you are right. All I saying is that it's wrong to say that "the poor pay in blood" - it belittles the rest. My little brother served in Iraq - he didn't have much at all except what his wife made at Home Depot and what I could chip in. But I have other friends that are wealthy that also serve. They may not be on the front lines - but they were at one time. Nobody enters the military as a full colonel!

I understand what you are trying to say - just be fair about it.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Houston Jim,

Because a baseless assertion that a US Senator is a Fascist does not deserve an educated response.

Like I said, I'm a pinko-commie-liberal, but I would never call McCain or Palin Fascists. That word has a very strong meaning, especially for someone from Europe, whose grandfathers had to fight off Mussolini's and Hitler's Fascist armies during WWII...they held them off long enough for the American to come in and provide backup to drive the Fascists out. So, don't think that I don't appreciate military service, and that I don't understand what a Fascist is. So, for someone to call a good man a fascist, it upsets me a bit. I would be just as upset if a stupid liberal called McCain a Fascist. McCain is an honorable American. I just don't agree with his politics.

Posted by: Patriot | September 18, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

All of your liberal words are for naught. Obama WILL NOT be the next president. McCain WILL be elected. Get used to it.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Houston Jim,

I cordially disagree with you. I believe that the military and their immediate families should not pay taxes, ever.

They are already paying with an invaluable volunteer service.

I might be a pinko-commie-liberal that thinks taxes should be raised, but public servants (military, cops, firefighters, public school teachers) should not have to pay.

Posted by: Patriot | September 18, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, I hope I experience Obama as you hope, R.D. It'll be nice to have someone in charge who is smart, has integrity, and has some principles besides me, me, me, greed, greed, greed. Children wait in line for 2 hours already in the emergency room. I don't think Obama's plan goes far enough (should have single-payer healthcare), but it's a start.

Obama and progressives don't hate rich people--all we ask is a fair share of taxes are paid for the opportunities that America gave rich people, to all of us, regardless of our positions in the workforce. We value work and dislike handouts as much as the next person, but we are not so stupid or callous to refuse assistance when needed. The 99% of Americans are tired of the rich benefitting from unfair laws they get passed because of their largess and, many times, corruption; of getting rich in an unfair, unregulated market (now shaky) just for having money and being rich. How about working like the rest of us? How about realizing that your success, all of our success, relies on a healthy workforce with a healthy infrastructure and sound economy.

People think of anarchy and civil wars happening to other countries, or is a thing of history, but continue letting the social and economic inequities continue, and you'll wonder why you ever complained about a measly 5% in taxes that benefits your country, especially when you are well-to-do. Socialism is not Communism, and Democracy is not Capitalism. The best governments and economies have a mixture of these elements. And I have to agree with Biden's implication: if you're rich, and you're biaching about a tax rate that's going to rise to a level that's way less than what it has been in past years, you are not only greedy, you are unpatriotic. A selfish and unpatriotic frack.

Posted by: A patriot | September 18, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

to Houston Jim | September 18, 2008 8:50 PM
I fully acknowledge that not everyone who serves in uniform is poor and I honor your friend’s sacrifice; however, the salary of regular army Private (E2 with two years) is only $18,032 – not what I call wealthy.
When they get back there is a 25 percent chance they will be homeless. See the links below for more info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_Grade
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-07-homeless-veterans_N.htm

Posted by: Andrew | September 18, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin hired lobbyists to maximize her city's receipt of federal earmarks.

Sarah Palin supported the "bridge to nowhere" before she was against it.

Sarah Palin LIED when she said that she refused the bridge earmark. Congress REVOKED the earmark.

Sarah Palin is a LIAR, so I don't trust her.

More Republican lies is not change.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieuA7nAOBXQ
.

Posted by: Palin/McCain = Nightmare on Wall Street and Main Street | September 18, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

That's rich Patriot - when you can't win an argument, just make fun of the other guy because he can't spell.

You are a true democrat...

Posted by: Houston Jim | September 18, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

I have to hand it to the Democrats. (literally and figuratively)

Maybe plagiarizing Joe Biden should tell Charlie Rangel that it's patriotic to pay taxes.

You know? Charlie Rangel? The one whose Democratic colleagues refused to vote out this very day...

The one who hasn't paid his income taxes (on the bribe(s) he took) for years?

After plagiarizing Joe has persuaded the freakin Democrat Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committe to pay his taxes--because it's patriotic--them he can tell the rest of us what to do.

Just talking about this makes me want to take a shower.

Obama/Biden/Vomit 08!!!!!!!!!!

M

Posted by: Michael | September 18, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

JDW,

Yes, the left are a bunch of loonies. But can you honestly say that the right is any better? Have you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Michael Savage?

They do the same thing that the vitriolic left do. There are wackos on both sides.

Posted by: Patriot | September 18, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

You are missing the point entirely Patriot. Everyone should pay Taxes. Everyone. They should pay the same percentage. If they do, and it hurts, then maybe, just maybe they'll get active and do something about the rampant spending in Washington. But as long as "paying" is someone elses problem, they won't do anything about it.

As far as the military issue - serving in the military shouldn't earn you the right "not to pay taxes". The only people who earn the right not to pay taxes are people who don't live here.

Posted by: Houston Jim | September 18, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Why am I even arguing with someone that doesn't know how to spell fascist????

Posted by: Patriot | September 18, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

The rage and hatred directed at Sarah Palin is a microcosm of the red-faced, amblyopic venom that characterizes the American Left. This woman's life is an example of the quintessential American success story yet the Left and their allies in the media are out to plainly destroy her. I'm reminded of the movie Farewell My Concubine where the group think, indoctrinated and dangerous Chinese youth march older, more traditional people through the streets. The left has made the right a boogeyman that doesn’t exist. The left creates monsters of their own divination so that they can pretend at hero and slay dragons that never were. The American left is on the march and, for once, perhaps the right should actually play dragon and confront these empty, vociferous, vitriolic cowards.

Posted by: JDW | September 18, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama a Fascist?
Do you even know what a fascist is?

I've heard "socialist" and "communist", but fascist?

Yeah, Obama is the love child of Hitler and Mussolini. He looks just like them too.


Posted by: Patriot | September 18, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

If the rich love the USA as much as they claim, why don't they chip in more money to get the USA out of $10 trillion in debt? Rich people run the country, and they are the ones who got the country into that much debt.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama (you can barely call him that after serving less than 200 days in office) is a racist facist idiot. elect him and get what you deserve - a muslim flag over the white house and a bread line for you.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

I've lost many jobs. I've lost my house. I don't have health care so I refuse to wait in line to get told I am sick. Rich people tr living in Michigan.

Obama wasn't president whenI experinced this over the last couple of years. that dip ship that said the economy's fundamental on sound footing was president.

What party did you vote for last election?

Did it work out for you?

It didn't for me!!

Posted by: Cody | September 18, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Some idiot wrote:
"Obama is a killer..."

With a start like that, how can the rest of the post not be completely unbiased and lacking absolute hyperbole??

Posted by: Bob R. | September 18, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Houston Jim | September 18, 2008 8:50 PM

Show me your research. How many relatively rich people are serving in the military front line...the men and women who are actually dodging bullets?

I travel around the country a lot. And in doing so, I've been on planes half full of Marines (San Diego is a base). I would venture to guess that 95% of them were under 21. Ask them what they do, they say "grunt"...meaning they are dodging bullets. I have never met anyone 21 and under who is personally wealthy and in the military...and in San Diego, I meet a lot.

BTW, Tell your friend "thanks". He is a true patriot. He should not have to pay taxes, ever. And that is not me being cynical or sarcastic. The country owes a debt to him. And Senator Obama understands that. McCain has vetoed funding for veterans.

Posted by: Patriot | September 18, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Whoops I Meant $150 Billion for the Obama renewable energy project.

Posted by: Cody | September 18, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a killer. He hates the people who work for a living, those who rise at dawn and work until sunset. His policies in which he will take the rest of our feeble wages in yet another tax hike makes me ill. Worse, it makes our families ill, because we can't take care of them.

So those of you who support Obama.

I hope (I really do) you get to experience him in all of his glory as he chases your job to China. I hope you get to experience the 2 hour wait in line at the hospital as your child wheezes and rattles with a 105' fever. I hope you get to experience your home being sold out from under you because his running mate gave Credit card companies the power to seize it.

I hope you get to experience Obama

Posted by: R.d. Olered | September 18, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Why don't the Democrats and Reps. stop paying for the stupid wasteful ads and donate it to charity. NOW THAT's TRUE REFORM!!!

Posted by: WhatIf? | September 18, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama wants to spend $150 million over ten years to develope renewable energy sources. I still don't think this is enough but it is better than th 1 or 2 Billion Bush suggested. Did he ever sign that bill?

The $150 Billion helps the U.S. in three ways:

1.) Creates high paying jobs in the U.S.
2.) Creates energy independance
3.) Lowers future health care costs by having a cleaner environment

Win! Win! Win! for White house

What does Mccain and Palin have on their agenda.

Build a $30 Billion pipeline from Alaska (probably at the tax payers expense) to reduce our dependance on foreign oil. Notice the word reduce our dependance not eliminate our dependance on hostile froeign regimes. Hasn't the oil industry received enough subsidies, tax breaks and profits over the last 8 years. Under the Mccain/Palin administration we will not fix any problems just put a bandaid on it for a while until Alaska has been exploited by the same company's that have been exploiting the citizens of this great country.

Posted by: Cody | September 18, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Jesus Christ - You think that only poor people serve in the military? My coleague at work (making over $250K) has been deployed for the past year fighting for this country - don't belittle him by saying the "poor pay in blood" - grow up.

Posted by: Houston Jim | September 18, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Andrew | September 18, 2008 8:42 PM

Short, sweet and right on point.
The poor are paying in blood.

True Patriots.

Posted by: Patriot | September 18, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

BLUE STAR FAMILIES FOR OBAMA

http://www.bsf4o.com/index.php

The set of folks with a larger stake in this election - Blue Star Families.

As military family members who support Barack Obama, we knew there was something different this election cycle. More interest in the Dem candidate, fewer Republican bumper stickers than we're used to seeing. But nothing prepared us for this. Our new Blue Star Families for Obama website went live yesterday (www.bsf4o.com). We expected it to generate a little interest, but hey, we're volunteers, we've done no publicity about it, no press release, no ads, nothing. So we didn't expect over 3000 hits in the first few hours.

Blue Star Families for Obama was started by five Army and Marine Corps wives back in July. We have a budget of zero. You might otherwise know us as the casserole brigade. But in just two short months we have generated chapters in 23 states, helped host a care package service event at the convention in Denver attended by Michelle Obama, attended dozens of rallies and roundtables and hosted house parties across the country. And keep in mind - we admire John McCain's service to his country. What we do not admire is his vision for tomorrow and his long refusal to provide real support to the military community.

Military families are flocking to Senator Obama because we recognize real respect when we see it. The Senator's admiration and support of military families and veterans is clear in his record, his stump speeches and his constant reminders to the country that we should all be a part of the war on terror - and not just by going shopping.

If you need proof, look no further than the new GI Bill. Supported by every major veterans' group in this country. Passed by a veto-proof bipartisan majority (hello, Governor Palin?). A real chance for veterans who sweated it out for years defending this country without question to contribute to it once again, through a solid education and upward mobility. Senator McCain inexplicably and inexcusably opposed the bill for budgetary reasons. Military families have seen eight years of attempted cuts to our benefits by the current administration. Do they really think we are getting too much? We dare you to come and live our lives for a couple of years and make that argument.

On our website we'll be posting comparisons of Obama v McCain's voting record on defense and veterans issues. We'd compare McCain's plans for military families to Obama's, except that only Barack Obama has a plan that directly addresses our issues.

So we say to the many thousands who have checked out our site in the last day or so, and to the rest of you: Please come back. Keep reading. Decide for yourself. And join us in electing a president who will restore our respect and sense of community with our civilian brothers and sisters, not one who will continue to ask us to serve in silence.

Written by Laura Dempsey and Kathy Roth-Douquet

Posted by: SueMVetforOBAMA | September 18, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Patriotism doesn't even enter into this discussion. Patriotism is buying government bonds - not giving the goivernment the money to blow it on stupid programs.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Todd Palin, who participates in state business in person or by e-mail, was among 13 people subpoenaed by the Alaska Legislature. McCain-Palin presidential campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan announced Thursday that Todd Palin would not appear, because he no longer believes the Legislature's investigation is legitimate.

Sarah Palin initially welcomed the investigation of accusations that she dismissed the state's public safety commissioner because he refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper. "Hold me accountable," she said.

Holding her accountable now means our presumption of her guilt until she proves herself innocent, as she has allowed McCain's lawyers to tie this investigation up until after the Election.

GUILTY PALIN POSTPONES INQUIRY, should be the topic.

Posted by: Bruce Becker | September 18, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

If paying more tax isn’t patriotic then… paying less tax must be patriotic? By this reasoning the person who pays nothing in taxes must be a heroic figure indeed.

Don't be cheap. We are at war, pay your taxes. It is the poor who are paying in blood.

Posted by: Andrew | September 18, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

> Even a fired CEO like Carly from HP gets 42 million!

Not to mention a position as one of McCain's economic advisers! Just think: this man may soon be choosing the people who control most of the country.

Posted by: JakeD | September 18, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Those of you who think it is OK for "the rich" to pay 45% of their income in taxes - that's right 45% - Fed + Social Security + Sales Tax - are just freeloaders - plain and simple. When and if any of you ever get there, you'll understand what it feels like to be treated unfairly by 60% of Americans. 60% of Americans pay ZERO taxes. That's right - ZERO. The bottom 40% gets a tax rebate HIGHER than what they paid in, and the middle 20% pays for it. The top 40% of Americans pay 100% of of the taxes - how can that possibly be fair in anyone's judgement? You use the same public infrastructure that we do, but you use ALL of the social programs. You got a tax "rebate" this year (remember those economic stimulus checks?), but we didn't - not one of us making over 250K got one. You may think you are entitled to pay less - and I truely think you should - but less by the same percentage. I came from a single parent family making less than $10K per year in the 1970's. I struggled to pay my own way through college and to get a good job. I have worked for 25 years to get where I am, I shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage simply because I am succesful. Not one of you will develop a sense of fairness until you complete a tax return which shows 80K in Federal Income Taxes, while your neighbor didn't pay ANYTHING, and still got a nice $600 check from Uncle Sam. Eventually what this tax concept will do is drive the upper 40% out of America - then what will you do? You'll pay - that's what. Your economy will collapse and you'll be finished as a country.
Paying taxes doesn't mean you are "Patriotic" - OMG - for the 40% of us who do pay the taxes in this country, it just means we're "suckers". Enjoy your free ride on us guys - while it lasts.

Posted by: Houston Jim | September 18, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

There ya go Biden! Raise taxes and kill any chance of an economic recovery!

WHAT A MORON! Where did Obama get this guy? We all know he voted to prevent a bankruptcy keeping your house out of Credit Card company hands, but really, is he TRYING to put us into a Depression?

Posted by: We_Cant_Afford_Obama | September 18, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in36tr.xls

Here are some good stats from the IRS website. Taxes paid in the 35% tax bracket only account for about 25% of the tax revenue generated not 99% like some non researching people believe.

When you lower the taxes on the lower/middle class everyone becomes richer. When 80% of the population (Lower & Middle class)has more displosable income they are able to consume more goods that the wealthy business owners are selling.

Why are wealthy business owners not interested in increasing sales?

Why are the wealthy so worried about preserving their currently limited income on their currently limited sales.

REACH FOR YOUR POTENTIAL RICH PEOPLE vote to lower taxes on the lower 80% of the population so that you can increase your taxable income by selling more products and services to us poor people. Then we can talk about lowering taxes when everyone is richer.

Tap into the wonderful resource that is right in front of your face: THE U.S. POPULATION

Posted by: Cody | September 18, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Warren Buffett has famously said, “if there is a class war in America, my side is winning.” In his annual letter to shareholders this year, the billionaire investment guru urged corporations to pony up on taxes, saying, "We hope our taxes continue to rise in the future—it will mean we are prospering—but we also hope that the rest of corporate America antes up along with us.”

FACTS:

In 2004, tax fraud was estimated at $311 billion a year, more than the entire budget for Medicare.

Most cheaters go unpunished. What’s worse, the legal tax system is rigged to favor rich people and large corporations at the expense of ordinary citizens and small businesses.

If tax dodging were a business, it would be the nation’s largest corporation. The current $311 billion tax gap is the equivalent of the total income taxes paid annually by all individuals and families earning less than $75,000.

If we simply collected taxes that cheaters are withholding from the system, we would have enough to give a free college education to every child in America, or to provide health insurance for small business employees, or to cut social security taxes in half.

It amounts to more money than we spent for Medicare in 2003, almost as much as the Defense budget in the same year, and almost enough to pay this year’s deficit of $403 billion.

Large corporations and rich individuals have greater opportunities to cheat – by understating income or shipping money to foreign tax havens, by inflating deductions or claiming expenses that never existed, or by speculating in the stock market and then not reporting the gains.

People with a job or a pension have no similar opportunity to lie about income or evade taxes.

As their biggest donors turned into the biggest tax cheaters, politicians have reacted by handcuffing the tax police. Congress has consistently under-funded IRS enforcement efforts and computer upgrades that would catch more tax dodgers.

Even when everybody abides by the law, middle-income households pay more taxes than rich ones. And politicians keep handing out tax favors to their campaign contributors – at our expense.

A tax system favoring the rich fuels the growing concentration of wealth in America – and therefore threatens our economic growth and even our democracy.

Middle class spending is the growth engine in a free market economy, and when taxes rob the middle class in favor of the rich, the economy shuts down.

Huge fortunes also produce political power that is hard to control. That’s why all modern democracies use their tax laws to prevent excessive concentration of wealth. And that’s why we need a fair taxes campaign in America.

In this election year, both candidates are certain to say a lot of things about taxes. But neither of them is likely to talk about fraud, favoritism and abuse of power.

In the year 2000, at the height of the last economic boom, IRS data shows that on average, the richest 400 taxpayers each had taxable income of $151 million, but these 400 taxpayers paid 27% of their income in federal, state, and local taxes.

All other taxpayers had average taxable income of only $34,600, and yet their tax burden was 40%.

“Since 1980, America’s elected officials have turned a reasonably fair tax code into one crafted for the benefit of those who give the largest campaign contributions, enjoy the greatest access, hire the most influential lobbyists, or otherwise exercise power beyond that enjoyed by average citizens.”

In 1965, individual taxpayers paid 66% of all US income taxes, and corporations paid about a third. But by 2000, the corporate share had dropped to 18%.

Not since 1929 have so few people controlled so much of the wealth in our country. Between 1970 and 2000 average annual income for the top 13,400 households in America increased from $3.6 million to nearly $24 million. That’s a staggering 538% increase. These 13,400 households account for just .01% of the population.

At the same time, the average income for 90% of US households actually fell from $27,060 to $27,035.

Between 1990 and 2000, the average CEO pay went up by 571% and corporate profits grew by 93% while worker pay barely stayed ahead of inflation.

Historians point out that more people moved up into the middle class during the 1950s and 1960s – and American wealth was much less concentrated – when the top income tax rate was 91%, impacting salaries and capital gains equally.
According to IRS data for 2000, most American households earned 70% of their income from work and only 10% from capital gains. But in the highest tax brackets, the situation is completely reversed.

The Bush budget for 2005 cuts another $6 billion in federal support to states, and yet public investment in education, job training, child care, the environment, energy, and research is already less than half what it was during the 1960s and 1970s.

Prosperity that was supposed to ‘trickle down’ has instead flowed straight uphill.
Currently, the republican agenda works to place the cost of health insurance on the backs of those making the least and removing this burden from corporations and replace public schools with private corporations (think Freddie Mac and Fannie May – as long as they make money its private, when such a system begins to crumble its the taxpayers turn to pick up the bill; the new capitalism.)

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

The only thing that can help McCain now is large quantities of voter racism.

Posted by: Hilary Smith | September 18, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and I'm also kinda angry about some of my tax dollars (the few they are) are going to other countries, for whatever reason. Why can't that money stay in the US???

I don't know if that is a Liberal or Conservative statement.

Liberals want to try solving issues by throwing money at it. Conservatives think they can pray issues away. Both are wrong.

Someone help me out.

Posted by: Patriot | September 18, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

While you are investigating "Leftwing Voter Registration Fraud On Rise"....why don't we also investigate the voting machines and the FACT that they can be tampered with! It does not matter how many people vote for Obama/Palin McCain is still going to win!
Not only can you hack into yahoo, you can hack into the voting booth stalls!!

Posted by: Uh huh | September 18, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Will everyone out there stop WHINING about who is paying more taxes AND START WORRYING about how much of the TAXES YOU ALREADY PAID are going towards bailing out all the financial institutions. Why is it that their CEO made a killing in pay and the public does not REBEL against this? Even a fired CEO like Carly from HP gets 42 million!

CEO PAY AND PROFITS are PRIVATE AND INDIVIDUAL, but LOSSES are SOCIALIZED? ALL TAX PAYERS get to bail out AIG? and all the rest who are soon going to be asking for help.

But all everyone wants to talk about is how much those over 250 000 are going to pay in taxes. YOUR taxes are already paying for the GOLDEN PARACHUTES of the CEO's from Fannie!!!!

Posted by: FED UP! | September 18, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Businesses both big and small will and always will continue to get tax breaks....No matter who is president. These incentives are given to businesses because they supply jobs...and rightfully so. If the company is willing to reinvest its profits back into the business, it benefits everybody....Creating more jobs and more revenue which if then is again reinvested in the business will also be untaxed. THIS TAX INCREASE IS ON INCOME. Income is not the same as revenue, and like I said before, those of us who have a business with enough REVENUE to take a 250K INCOME, don't really care about the tax increase because its peanuts compare to the assets that are internal to the business that I own. Ok, I'm done wasting my time trying to explain this...got better things to do!!

Posted by: Ralph | September 18, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

I guess the Republicans just aren't capable of playing fair. I read the posts above and all I read is garbage like " the top 1% pay 99% of taxes", Proof of obamas homosexual affair"

These are not Americans writing this drivle. These are traiters to the spirit of America. These are the same people that run up their credit cards and then declare bankruptcy. They drive huge SUV's and buy gigantic houses they cannot afford then buy another when prices drop and walk away from their debts. These people are scum. And as we've seen, they are the ones NOT paying their way and ARE having homosexual affairs.

Posted by: Marcus | September 18, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Well said Anonymous at 7:44pm. Warren Buffet is right on the money.

The most amazing thing is that 51% of voters actually think that under Senator Obama's tax plan that their taxes will go up. Not only will they not go up, but according to independent tax groups they'll go down by 3X AS MUCH as under Johnny "the liar" McCain's tax plan. Pay $300 less in taxes under McCain or pay $1000 less in taxes under President Obama?

Posted by: McCain is a liar | September 18, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

I am ashamed and appalled by Sarah Palin's arrogance, blowing her own horn and not even being honest about it. I am so sick of hearing her talk about the bridge to nowhere and her parrot like repetition of the statement "thanks but no thanks" and her exaggeration about how she sold the Governor’s jet on EBay. Yeah sure, they were close enough to the truth but not quite and that makes all the difference. What next? Change the wordings on the Constitution to suit her mood for the day?

I hate it that she has decided for herself that Polar bears are not extinct and finds it perfectly sane to shoot wolves down just so she and her white neighbors can shoot the caribou and moose. Honestly, at this rate I am certain that she will sell all the whales in the sea to Japan fishermen to make a quick buck. Maybe she feels that the only animals needed in this planet are those that can be made into staple food or those that are good game.

Sarah Palin represents what is mostly wrong with this country today: Might is right. Arrogance is a virtue. The Earth does not matter or only as much as it can be squeezed for oil.

And America wants to vote for her. But what the heck, anybody will do as long as they are not Black, right?

Posted by: Cor21 | September 18, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Damn, I'm starting to sound like a Libertarian....

Posted by: Patriot | September 18, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Ok...

The main difference is trickle down or trickle up economics.

Trickle down...cut corporate taxes and hope they give their windfall to their employees, who can then increase their buying power and positively affect the GDP. Key word is 'hope'.

Trickle up...cut "every-man" taxes, and increase the taxes on the people that pay them. This would increase the buying power of the "every-man", but the "every-man" might not have a job to be taxed, as you see in more socialized countries.

During the past 8 years, we have been trying the trickle down theory...can a conservative honestly say that it has worked? The idea is good, but the global economic situation made it bad, but the administration was too stubborn to admit a mistake.

Time to try something new, I believe.

To the small business owners who are struggling, I feel your pain because I am a small business owner myself. If you are making $250k post expenses and interest and pre taxes, then you are doing very well for yourself, and congratulations. But to say that paying $9000 more in taxes will break the bank, then you have not been fiscally responsible in your own life. Fiscal irresponsibility by the Bush administration and countless major banks, investment and insurance companies is what is causing the need to raise taxes.

The "every-man" needs to be accountable as well. If you couldn't afford that house, you should not have bought it, period. The government should not have to bail you out for being fiscally irresponsible, just like the "every-man" shouldn't have to bail out companies for being irresponsible.

Posted by: Patriot | September 18, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

lets use common sense for a change. Giving tax breaks to big buisness has not done anyone good for the last 8 years except the big CEOs and have they shared the wealth? NO! Will they ever? NO! 100 to 1 = average pay difference. You republicans who are so proud of religon should ask yourselves what would your jesus do pay higher taxes to benifit the people who need it? or hoard it so he could drive his lexus to the country club every weekend?

Posted by: andy | September 18, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

A few quick qoutes from one of our gretest founding fathers...
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper

Every generation needs a new revolution.

Posted by: THOMAS JEFFERSON | September 18, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

The best thing that Sarah Palin did in Cedar Rapids was make reference to a "Palin-McCain administration."

It's priceless.

I have the video of it posted at:
http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-touts-palin-mccain-administration.html

Posted by: scootmandubious | September 18, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

First off, don't think the wealthy don't pay their fair share in taxes because the the upper 10% pay something like 90% of all the tax revenue in this country. HOWEVER, this plan is to tax only those who make over 250K in INCOME....Us smart one's that own businesses know that keeping the majority of their money inside the business is the best way to avoid paying taxes and actually increase their wealth. Thus this tax plan will not put people and small businesses out of work. That is unless the business owner is an idiot and has no idea that taking 250K of income out of his small business when he should be reinvesting it is the problem, not the tax increase. Owners of large businesses that can actually afford to take a 250K salary are not that worried about it because they have millions more in assets inside their business.

Posted by: Ralph | September 18, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

America is 9.3 trillion dollars in debt! And y'all have to pay it back with interest y'know. You can thank the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/McCain gang for the fact that your children are going to be second world citizens before long, yet some of you are unable to think clearly and will vote for the Republicans yet again. Why? Because you make emotional connections to political rhetoric. If you aren't voting based on the issues and policies then please don't vote because you really aren't going to contribute anything to the wellbeing of you country. I never thought I would say that... but the last couple of months have convinced me otherwise.

Posted by: Mike Robinson | September 18, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

TAXES

If you are right...which I will admit i do not know tax code....means $25000 dollars...that is still a hell of alot of money and that is just Fed taxes...no Fica and State tax.

Posted by: THOMAS JEFFERSON | September 18, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: WayneW | September 18, 2008 7:35 PM

Ok, some conservative republican please argue with Wayne, a small business owner who will be "helped" by McCain/Palin.

I'm so curious as to what you could say. And if you are a small business owner, please explain the hardship you and your employees would incur under Obama/Biden. How many jobs would you have to cut?

Real numbers, please. No talking points.


Posted by: Patriot | September 18, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

confused: that's not quite how the tax system works. you pay by bracket. so if someone making $50K pays 10% ($5K) in taxes, someone making $250K also pays 10% on their first $50K of income. the 35% doesn't apply to the whole $250K, just the amount that's above $250K.

Posted by: taxes | September 18, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

"$9k won't result in the loss of one job. It'll just mean that I have $9k less to play with."

May not directly but indirectly it might. If "money to play with" disappears so might things that support the small guy - the guy that mows your lawn, washes your car, hotel employees because you cut back, waiters and waitresses, because you cut back, personal trainers, dog groomers...so on and so forth - things you decide to do yourself because you have to cut back.

Posted by: Steve | September 18, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Raising taxes will only put people out of work. Jimmy Carter proved it.

By the way, the wealthiest 1% in America already pay 99% of the taxes. So please define "fair share."

Posted by: www.babeled.com | September 18, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry...I got a little confused about the whole "tax fairness" issue. Currently a person making $50K would be in about a 10% tax bracket...which means they pay $5K in fed taxes per year. A person making $250K would be in a 35% tax bracket which means they pay $87.5K in fed taxes per year.
$5K versus $87.5K per year
The people making $250K per year need to pay more?
Is that what you guys are saying?

Posted by: Confused | September 18, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Wake up | September 18, 2008 7:00 PM

"Jeremy,

Let's do some quick math. After fed/state/local taxes, a family in DC making 250,000/yr gets about $12k/month. Sounds like a lot, right? Wrong. The average price for a 2BR condo (1000 sq ft) in Washington DC is about 500,000. That means a mortgage is abt 4000/mo. Most post-grad professionals pay about 1000/mo in Student loans (and get no tax refunds bc they're "rich") - so $2000/mo if they both have loans. This means that almost half of their total pay is lost to loans and mortgage. Then you add in a car payment, daycare, food, insurance, and other expenses for the family, and you have another $4000/mo. That leaves 2k/mo for "incidentals" and savings. That might not be chump change, but it sure isn't "rich." Obama's tax increases will cost this couple about $1000/mo. So they either have no incidentals (dinners out, vacations) or no savings. Considering that these folks are paying an enormous share of the total tax burden, is it really right to make them pay more taxes, and then have the nerve to question their patriotism when they are upset about it?"


Wake up,

You need to wake up. Your basic math was off as well. Someone making $250,000 under Obama's plan would bring home roughly $151,000 or $12,600/month.

I'll use your numbers (even though I know they're off).

House: $4,000/month
Loans: $2,000/month

12,600/month
-6,000/month

That leaves roughly $6,600 for everything else life requires. You said about $4,000 a month for food, car, child care, etc? Well then these idiots need to learn to manage their money better. Top dollar education and they don't know what a budget is?

And just for comparison... we'll do someone making $40,000/year or roughly $32,000 (2,667/month) after taxes.

House: $1,000/month (roughly)
Car, utilities, food, etc... the rest of their income.

Now tell me something, who would you rather be? Someone living pay check to pay check, paying less taxes? Or someone who has money to save, paying more taxes?

Posted by: hello | September 18, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

HEY, this guy ought to know about taxes.

Warren Buffett has famously said, “if there is a class war in America, my side is winning.” In his annual letter to shareholders this year, the billionaire investment guru urged corporations to pony up on taxes, saying, "We hope our taxes continue to rise in the future—it will mean we are prospering—but we also hope that the rest of corporate America antes up along with us.”

In 2004, tax fraud was estimated at $311 billion a year, more than the entire budget for Medicare, and more than last year's revenues at Walmart or General Electric. Most cheaters go unpunished. What’s worse, the legal tax system is rigged to favor rich people and large corporations at the expense of ordinary citizens and small businesses. Even when everybody abides by the law, middle-income households pay more taxes than rich ones. And politicians keep handing out tax favors to their campaign contributors – at our expense.

A chorus of academics, journalists, and private citizens are warning that a tax system favoring the rich fuels the growing concentration of wealth in America – and therefore threatens our economic growth and even our democracy.

Middle class spending is the growth engine in a free market economy, and when taxes rob the middle class in favor of the rich, the economy shuts down.
Huge fortunes also produce political power that is hard to control. That’s why all modern democracies use their tax laws to prevent excessive concentration of wealth. And that’s why we need a fair taxes campaign in America.

In this election year, both candidates are certain to say a lot of things about taxes. But neither of them is likely to talk about fraud, favoritism and abuse of power – unless voters raise these issues and ask for reforms.

In the year 2000, at the height of the last economic boom and before the most recent round of tax cuts were enacted, IRS data shows that the richest 400 taxpayers paid 27% of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. On average, these 400 taxpayers each had taxable income of $151 million. All other taxpayers had average taxable income of only $34,600, and yet their tax burden was 40%.

“Over the last three decades, America’s elected officials have turned a reasonably fair tax code into one crafted for the benefit of those who give the largest campaign contributions, enjoy the greatest access, hire the most influential lobbyists, or otherwise exercise power beyond that enjoyed by average citizens.”

Corporations have been profiting in Washington, too. In 1965, individual taxpayers paid 66% of all US income taxes, and corporations paid about a third. But by 2000, the corporate share had dropped to 18%, just about half what it used to be.

Income distribution in the United States is the most unequal among all developed nations, according to OECD data.

Not since 1929 have so few people controlled so much of the wealth in our country. Between 1970 and 2000 average income for the top 13,400 households in America increased from $3.6 million to nearly $24 million. That’s a staggering 538% increase.

At the same time, the average income for 90% of US households actually fell from $27,060 to $27,035. These 13,400 households account for just .01% of the population, according to Johnston.

Prosperity that was supposed to ‘trickle down’ has instead flowed straight uphill. Between 1990 and 2000, the average CEO pay went up by 571% and corporate profits grew by 93% while worker pay barely stayed ahead of inflation.

Historians point out that more people moved up into the middle class during the 1950s and 1960s – and American wealth was much less concentrated – when the top income tax rate was 91%, impacting salaries and capital gains equally.

According to IRS data for 2000, most American households earned 70% of their income from work and only 10% from capital gains. But in the highest tax brackets, the situation is completely reversed.
The Bush budget for 2005 cuts another $6 billion in federal support to states, and yet public investment in education, job training, child care, the environment, energy, and research is already less than half what it was during the 1960s and 1970s.

If tax dodging were a business, it would be the nation’s largest corporation,” said journalists Barlett and Steele. The current $311 billion tax gap is the equivalent of the total income taxes paid annually by all individuals and families earning less than $75,000.

If we simply collected taxes that cheaters are withholding from the system, we would have enough to give a free college education to every child in America, or to provide health insurance for small business employees, or to cut social security taxes in half. It amounts to more money than we spent for Medicare in 2003, almost as much as the Defense budget, and almost enough to pay last year’s deficit.

Large corporations and rich individuals have greater incentive and many more opportunities to cheat – by understating income or shipping money to foreign tax havens, by inflating deductions or claiming expenses that never existed, or by speculating in the stock market and then not reporting the gains. People with a job or a pension have no similar opportunity to lie about income or evade taxes.

Unfortunately, as their biggest donors turned into the biggest tax cheaters, politicians have reacted by handcuffing the tax police. Congress has consistently under-funded IRS enforcement efforts and computer upgrades that would catch more tax dodgers.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Ever get a job from a poor man? Income Inequality...what the hell is that I call it Socialism...because you earn less than me I should give you some of mine...Hell no...the country before the 1930s had no "social programs" do for yourself or die trying NOT oh my god when is the Govt gonna save me.

Posted by: THOMAS JEFFERSON | September 18, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Closing tax loopholes for corporations will have not have the impact of causing more corporations to ship jobs overseas. Actually, Obama's tax policy creates an incentive for corporations to keep jobs in America. The idea that the Republicans are good for business (either big or small businesses) is false. Republican policy is bad policy, and is detrimental to the vast majority of Americans. The only people who can claim to benefit would be the very wealthy, but even they are negatively affected by increased poverty, crime, and environmental degradation.

Posted by: High_IQ | September 18, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

~~~~~~~~Small Business

If you make $250,000 a year, just pay!!! Because your employees don't make so much and they still pay same as you do? NOT FAIR, NOT FAIR AT ALL!!!

Posted by: Bobster | September 18, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Stacey Hill:

Please see my post(s) on every other thread you've spammed that to. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: JakeD | September 18, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

I am an owner of a very small business. $9k a year may not be a lot to some, but for those of us who are still stuggling to pay our employees and keep the business going in these very slow times, do not want to see higher taxes.

Posted by: Small Business | September 18, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

If companies outsource their productions and jobs to other country, they are still obligated to pay American taxes. With McCain's plan, they pay really minimum, almost nothing if they outsource, and most of them will outsource anyway. So, as might as well, if our jobs are going to other countries, make the companies pay tripple taxes as much they pay now or revoke their business with USA.

Posted by: Bobster | September 18, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Wake-up - by the way, I've never even been to daily kos. I don't visit those sites. These are my views and my values. I occasionally look at fox news to see what the other side is saying and I'm not going to say that I dismiss your views or their views. I'm not going to say that you parrot what is said on that channel or website. Frankly, I don't care. What I care about is moving the US to policies that help our current economic and health care situations. I'm definitely not without in the current conditions, but I know that other Americans are and I believe it is my duty as an Amerian to support policies that help these individuals. You might call that Communism or Liberalism; I call it the American way (or what once was the American way). But, hey, thanks for your break-down on the "hardships" of a family living on $250,000 in Washington, DC, which definitely not a typical "urban area" as you defined the criterium in your earlier post.

Posted by: Jeremy | September 18, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Choices of canidates this year suck... Including Obama and McCain. Neither one of these two canidates is suited for the job at hand. I'll just have to wait another 4-8 years I guess. If I have to vote for either one... I am currently leading to war hungry McCain. But I may just vote for some other party this go around.

Posted by: Neither side has my vote | September 18, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

We need to raise taxes on the most wealthy. I am among that group and I own a small business. I can tell you unequivocally that raising my taxes by about $9k won't result in the loss of one job. It'll just mean that I have $9k less to play with.

Also, we need to get rid of this "shadow economy" in which the fat cats (really fat cats) play "casino" with our financial markets. We need to get back to actually producing something instead of these shell games that make the really rich richer and when things go bust, put taxpayer (not the really rich guys) at risk. We have to set it up so that we the taxpayer aren't bailing them them out. I'd love to have that sort of risk -- play, play, play and have the taxpayer bail me out when I mess up/overextend.

Finally, as we shift our economy to actually producing stuff of worth, we need to have some protections.

Whole lotta changes needed, and I can tell you that they won't come from McCain, who is part of the failed trickle-down losing philosophy (and Palin is simple irrelevant in this and any othe issue).

Posted by: WayneW | September 18, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is a diversion to distract us from what has actually be going on these past eight years.

This is a very interesting read concerning McCain's choice of Palin and Republican manipulation from an unusual and surprising religious perspective. I highly recommend checking it out:

http://www.newsflavor.com/Opinions/McCain-Hijacks-Christianity-Via-Palin.240929

Posted by: LaRae | September 18, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

ANY OF YOU MORRONS HERE MAKING $250,000???

That's what I thought!!!

THEN, SHUT THE HELL UP!!!

LET'S MAKE THOSE WHO DO, PAY FAIR AMOUNT OF TAXES!!!

It will help our government and military and less people will complain, because wealthy are minority here.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Charles - it's cool. It's hard to tell who is geniune and who is joking when you have all of these "liberal hatin'" extremists on the boards. I honestly can't believe all of the anger directed at something called a "liberal" in this country. We are all Americans and if you don't like my views than, well, that's tough because this is my Country too.

Wake-up. Yeah - you are still full of it. You are so disengaged from the reality of most Americans. I won't call you an "elitist" because I'm not sure what that means. But, look at the current state of the economy. We aren't in a good situation, agreed? Okay, so you want more of the same policies that didn't work for the last eight years and I would like some new ideas. Fine, we disagree. But, why don't you link to some non-partisan data that supports your perspective?

Posted by: Jeremy | September 18, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

More lies from "good christian" Caribou Barbie..

This woman is sick in the head.


Records culled from the archives of the Wasilla, Alaska, city government reveal that Palin was directly involved in soliciting millions of dollars in earmarks for Wasilla when she was mayor. And she got help from a well-connected Washington lobbyist.


In a monthly status report to the city on March 7, 2000, newly hired "City Lobbyist" Steve Silver describes how the Palin administration had requested $6.6 million in federal earmarks for water and sewer improvements for Wasilla, and another $1 million for police equipment. Mayor Palin reviewed and signed the lobbyist's report, dated April 5, 2000.


Those earmark requests have not previously been disclosed, said Keith Ashdown, chief investigator for the non-profit Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group. Ashdown said the lobbyist's report offers a rare window into a normally closed-door process. "The document you've found is a peek behind the curtain of how earmarks get approved in Washington," he said.


"This further confirms that Palin was very supportive of the earmark system," Ashdown said. "She was getting very specific feedback from this lobbyist."
.
http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/17/1413605.aspx
.

Posted by: Stacey Hill | September 18, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Biden should not pay any attention to the Moose , she is irrelevant

Posted by: j | September 18, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Liberals think that it is "progressive" to tax "big business." But Canada, Ireland, Germany, Poland, etc. have been cutting their corporate taxes. Want to see more outsourcing of jobs to Canada, Europe and the Far East? Then vote for Obama/Biden and watch them raise business taxes and drive even more jobs overseas.

Posted by: Econ Prof | September 18, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous-
If Hillary wanted to be picked, she should have refrained from running a divisive, bitter, cheap-shot campaign, which is evidently still hurting our cause in cases like yours. Also, there are apparently some damaging issues of impropriety that would have come to light if she had been chosen. Hillary's 3 A.M. phone add made Biden an obvious choice to substantiate foreign policy crisis strength, as well.
I hope you'll change your mind.

Posted by: Charles | September 18, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Look guys -- I'm fine just kidding around once in a while -- but, let's face the facts:

In 2004, George W. Bush received over 6 million votes from DEMOCRATS!!! If you don't think that McCain is going to get more than that this time around, you are in for a lot of disappointment come November 5th.

Posted by: JakeD | September 18, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

There will be no Hillary in 2012! That is the year of the roundhouse kick.
Only I can handle the gay rights decision.
There is no such thing as a lesbian, there are only women that have not met me.
As for the other gender of gays, it just take 1 roundhouse kick to straighten them out(or kill them, either way all's good).

And yes, I do wear John McCain pj's.

Posted by: Chuck Norris | September 18, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

It is evident that we are not taking enough taxes in to pay for all the obligations our country is paying for nor is there enough money availible to rebuild our infrastructure. We are charging debt as though we were using a credit card and not paying anything back to the principle. Our debt is out of control and people say don't raise taxes to pay for the debt? How is that possible? Does anyone pay their debts any more? It seems to me that we have to raise taxes to be responsible to our children as well as ourselevs and our country. Stop being th b iggest debtor nation as we are now. Pay our debt. We ran it up we have to pay it off.

Posted by: Bill | September 18, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

I respect Hillary and I think she could well beat Obama in 2012. In the meantime I am not willing to risk the supreme court, the economy, war, the right to choose, and having Palin as president in the meantime.

Thanks but no thanks, go to http://pumapac.org/ they will gleefully echo your comments.


"If you support Hillary, YOU MUST VOTE AGAINST OBAMA!!!

Go McCain / Palin 2008! Go Hillary 2012!!

Posted by: It Makes Sense | September 18, 2008 6:50 PM"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Charles:

Don't mention it : )

Posted by: JakeD | September 18, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Eric (AKA "It Makes Sense"):

LBJ did not run for re-election.

Posted by: JakeD | September 18, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Jeremy-
Those angry words were aimed at anyone who agreed with the right wing arguments you were pretending to make. Until you're last sentence, you ridiculous argument looked like one of their serious ones, That's how charicaturish they've become.
Jake- Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

Posted by: Charles | September 18, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

I am officially declaring my 2012 run for presidentcy. I will roundhouse kick any that get in my way.
Obama's a sissy. I will kick him so hard, his grandchildren will have bruises.
McCain will simply be dead by then.
I'll be starting my own party, the Chuckpublicans.

I will kick the sh*t out of taxes!

Posted by: Chuck Norris | September 18, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for that tip about the googler thingy, that is handy.

"Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts of the past six years haven't paid for themselves."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html

"O'Reilly, the same man who claimed he would find that one guy who set the price of gasoline, said last night that the Bush tax cuts have actually increased revenue, and that THE reason real wages have fallen for most Americans in the past few years is illegal immigration. Here are some highlights and commentary from various topics on last night's interview. ...
Obama then disagreed with O'Reilly's claim. Who is correct? Obama.

The economy (as measured by percent change in real or nominal GDP) did not grow faster under Pres. Bush than under Pres. Clinton. That 19 percent figure O'Reilly is citing is merely the real GDP growth rate from when Bush entered office until now. But the economy didn't grow 19 percent more under Bush than Clinton."
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23589.html

This hear googler thing is kinda fun, I'll have to make it one of my favrites.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Jeremy,

Let's do some quick math. After fed/state/local taxes, a family in DC making 250,000/yr gets about $12k/month. Sounds like a lot, right? Wrong. The average price for a 2BR condo (1000 sq ft) in Washington DC is about 500,000. That means a mortgage is abt 4000/mo. Most post-grad professionals pay about 1000/mo in Student loans (and get no tax refunds bc they're "rich") - so $2000/mo if they both have loans. This means that almost half of their total pay is lost to loans and mortgage. Then you add in a car payment, daycare, food, insurance, and other expenses for the family, and you have another $4000/mo. That leaves 2k/mo for "incidentals" and savings. That might not be chump change, but it sure isn't "rich." Obama's tax increases will cost this couple about $1000/mo. So they either have no incidentals (dinners out, vacations) or no savings. Considering that these folks are paying an enormous share of the total tax burden, is it really right to make them pay more taxes, and then have the nerve to question their patriotism when they are upset about it?

Posted by: Wake up | September 18, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Jeremy-
Sorry about the friendly fire. I didn't initially catch the disguise.

Posted by: Charles | September 18, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

When Bill Clinton called off the watch dogs for Fannie and Freddie the pot began to simmer. After a few politically placed CEO's got through mismanaging Fannie and Freddie it began to bubble. We all know the rest of the story. It's the old domino theory in living color. "Red"

Posted by: Country Boy | September 18, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Jeremy-
If people like you weren't ignorantly supporting all the exploitative economic schemes the corporatists have been perpetrating on weaker nations and yourself, then foreigners wouldn't find it neccessary to immigrate to this country so often.

I was born here because my grandfather immigrated from Germany in another diaspora of the late 1800s. After visiting Europe a few times, I would return if I could afford it. While I'm here, I'll do what I can to help us get out from under the oppression and ignorance perpetrated by your "heroes".

There are other perspectives in the world beside your ethnocentrism, of which you are so inappropriately proud.
Pride goeth before the fall. If you don't like it, take it up with Jesus. (Be carefull. He's not an American.)

Posted by: Charles | September 18, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Too Wake Up and the supposed easily verifible tax cut/increases in the Bush tax plan. Please tell me where to goggle search the tax increases that the bush tax cuts made possible. Also it seems a flat rate tax in ALL INCOME with no loop holes would be the best way to do this.

Posted by: Bill | September 18, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Attention Hillary Voters:
Vote for Obama and you will have DESTROYED Hillary's chance at
becoming President!!

Obama has already destroyed Hillary's chances for this time around. He
couldn't even do her the honor of making her VP.

Consider this:
If you elect Obama for 2008 , Hillary CAN'T RUN IN 2012!! The
incumbent always runs for their party in reelection.

Hillary will then be 69 when she gets a chance to run as democrat.
Then people will call her old(like they do McCain who is 72) and she
will NEVER become President.

Reagan was 69 when he got elected but he wasn't trying to break the
glass ceiling at the same time.

So if you care at all about Hillary, you will VOTE AGAINST Obama this
time around. Plus, you will break the glass ceiling and Hillary WILL
BE THERE in 2012!!

Think about it!! It makes sense!!

If you support Hillary, YOU MUST VOTE AGAINST OBAMA!!!

Go McCain / Palin 2008! Go Hillary 2012!!

Posted by: It Makes Sense | September 18, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Us liberal:

If you raise taxes on a small business owner, the SB owner and his employees pay the price. Obama fails to mention that a large majority of SB owners are established as S-Corporations and thus have their gross revenues treated as "personal income." Thus, his tax increases on the rich will hit almost all of the SB owners. And that means they can hire fewer people (or have to pay them less). And this doesn't even begin to mention Obama's increased health/payroll taxes for employers. His SB tax credit is a drop in the bucket compared to these new taxes. It's a death sentence for American small business. But, hey, who cares? Let's soak the "rich" so we can pay for more federal programs!

Posted by: Wake up | September 18, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

(Jeremy taking some friendly fire from Charles ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 18, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama likes to knit sweaters, if by 'knit' you mean kill, and by 'sweaters' you mean babies.

McCain/Palin 2008! Palin/Chuck Norris 2012!

Many people wear Superman pj's, Superman wears John McCain pj's.

Posted by: Bobo4bush | September 18, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

"Raising taxes is about killing jobs and hurting small businesses and making things worse," [Palin] said.


This woman is an idiot.

Posted by: us liberal | September 18, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Jeremy/Others: Every stat I cite is fully varifiable by doing a simple google search. You might try it instead of reciting DailyKos talking points. Here's one more you can check out: the Bush tax cuts resulted in 20% MORE TAX REVENUE than in the Clinton years. That means we had more tax dollars to spend after CUTTING taxes. Seems impossible, no? Well, please look it up. The reality is that the tax cuts caused economic growth and reduced legal tax avoidance. The problem wasn't taxes, and this is what Obama and Democrats want you to forget: The problem was SPENDING. It was and remains out of control, and W and the Republicans should certainly take some of the blame. But you can't tax your way out of this problem. It'll only REDUCE total tax revenues (thru investment/job losses), and leave our deficits even bigger - especially considering Obama's huge spending increases. And please remember, Obama's not leaving Iraq tomorrow, and he has already said he wants to go to Afghanistan and Pakistan. So that $10b ain't coming back home any time soon.

This is basic economics.

Posted by: Wake up | September 18, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Jeremy-
Make sure you sleep with a night light on so the muslim-solcialist-homo boogey-man won't get you. Also just trust your two daddies, Bush and McCain to take care of it for you. Be sure to say yes to every idiotic plan they offer you so you'll be safe. Also, if you paid for a history class, you're due a refund.

Posted by: Charles | September 18, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Charles - geez! What are you some kind of lib-commie-dem-slander-word? Don't you realize the terrorist threat that causes or threat levels to rise to yellow! YELLOW! These Muslims/minorities/immigrants have been taking over for years! What are you some kind of believer in science! Are you weak? Homosexual? A, a, a, god-forbid, vegetarian! Go back to where you came and leave this country to those of us who originated here...the "Indians." Sorry, just preparing you for the well-thought out counter-arguments.

Posted by: jeremy | September 18, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Republicans good for the economy?!?! What a laugh. It is the Republicans who made this mess and now they are all running away and trying to point the finger at someone else. A vote for for McCain/Palin is a vote to continue the Bush/Cheney policies and all of America knows it. Who exactly would fill all the positions in a McCain administration?...exactly the same people who are there now.

And if Republicans really are the leaders when it comes to the economy where the heck is their current leader George Bush? Economy going to hell and he can't even be bothered to make a public statement.

Bush/McCain/Cheney/Palin...its all the same deal, lipstick or no.

Posted by: Cal | September 18, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

MANolete your post could have just been condensed into...

Sarah Palin has a uterus, you have a uterus, therefor you must vote for Palin.

Most people are not silly enough to fall for this and overlook all the differences between a good candidate like Hillary and one like Palin.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

How much is soldier's or Marine's life worth?

Apparently about $10,000,000,000 per month.

So, not only is that family losing a loved one, they have to pay taxes on top of that. How about this...lose a child during his/her active military duty, and you never have to pay taxes again?

But back to the issue of taxes...higher taxes during the Clinton administration resulted in a record surplus and a very strong dollar. Lower taxes during the Bush administration resulted in...well, quite possibly the worst financial crisis in the US since the Great Depression. So, instead of raising taxes, lets cut taxes some more, and keep borrowing money from the Chinese.

I am no economist, but there is a strong correlation between the two. And to all the econophiles who are about to respond calling me dumb, I understand that there are 100's of variables that shape the economy.

So yes, even though I am not fortunate enough to be in the $250,000 tax bracket (yet), I would gladly pay higher taxes if that increased the value of the dollar, fought the true war on terror in Afghanistan, put the US back on top of the world for education, and made my house worth at least what I paid for it. Because that $500 check I got from Bush as a stimulus didn't make up the $50k I lost on my house over the past year.

Posted by: Patriot | September 18, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Wake Up-
If the top 10% really are paying 71% of the taxes, (Which I doubt.) then how in the hell did they get that much money in the first place?
They got it by not paying the workers what they're worth! That's how! Quit feeling sorry for those lazy, self-righteous, whiney bums who've been fleecing us ever since Reagan put a spell on the nation.

CEO:Worker pay ratio was 20:1 now 500:1.
Cost of living up x15 in 50 years. Wages up x3 in same period
.
Snap out of it. Stop sucking up to the rich, and start being fair to the people who produce the things you need. This stuff is obvious, if you're paying attention. Right wing propaganda pays much better than left wing propaganda. So do some objective research, if you can.

Posted by: Charles | September 18, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Here is one of the clearer explanations of the differences in the McCain and Obama tax plans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

If you want all the details look here.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf

Read and decide for yourself.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Wake-up: You are full of it! $250,000 a year buys a lot more in most "urban" areas than a Condo. Plus, I'm sorry, but these tax "increases" back to the Clinton era are not going to bankrupt these people. They'll probably hardly feel it. Eventually they'll have to pay for the huge debt anyway, and do you really want to push that to your kids or grand-children? I guess it's better just to pretend there's no problem and hope it goes away? Maybe you are too far from the actual lower middle class to realize it, but families making under $250,000 are feeling the economic hit and not simply because they can't afford that new Lexus or the upgrade to a larger home. But, that's not your problem is it? Patriotism only extends to YOUR agenda.

Posted by: jeremy | September 18, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

ALASKA LOVES SARAH for the great work she has done reforming government to work for the citizens, and AMERICA IS FALLING IN LOVE WITH SARAH for her genuine sincerity, honesty and brilliant mind.

It is time to recognize that women can do a great job, many times better than men and Sarah Palin's record shows she is exceptional.

THE MCCAIN/PALIN TICKET HAS GIVEN HOPE FOR THE FUTURE OF AMERICA TO ALL THE 18 MILLION FORMER HILLARY SUPPORTERS who now have a very compelling reason to vote for the republican ticket, as a way to put their country first by electing a president that has the qualifications, experience and love for our country and at the same time elect a woman to the White House as equal partners in governance and leadership of our country.
Country First!

DEMOCRATS FOR MCCAIN/PALIN!

Posted by: MANolete | September 18, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

I'm a little confused.

If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your Grandparents, you're "exotic, different."

Grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, a quintessential American story.

If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.

Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.

Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.

Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.

If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, and spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.

If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive and a heartbeat away from the presidency should a 72 year old man (who has had cancer 4 times) die.


If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.

If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.

If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.

If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.

If your wife is a Harvard law graduate, who gave up a position in prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.

If your husband is nicknamed "First Dude", no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

OK, I get it now.

Posted by: Obama Biden 09 | September 18, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

I know there is a form you can request to make additional payments to the IRS for more taxes than you actually owe. Why don't people like Biden and Obama do the patriotic thing and send in double the taxes they owe.
http://www.bop-o-rama.com
Pigs really can fly!

Posted by: acarponzo | September 18, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Jeremy, just because both Parties spend like drunken sailors doesn't mean that the "rich" (which includes small business owners and lots of professionals in urban areas where 250k barely gets them a condo) should pay more taxes. When your car's totaled, you don't go spend more on gas and wiper blades. And you sure don't force your neighbors to pay for it. You get a new car.

Posted by: Wake up | September 18, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Just remember, TWE, in the primaries, Obama's tax plan started at 150,000, not 250,000. He raised it, because that made too many Americans upset (i.e., they weren't gonna vote for him). Given such a "rigid" stance and "principled" reasoning, I wonder how long it would take a President Obama to realize that more Americans have to be "patriotic" in order to pay for all of his new government programs (including military operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan).

Posted by: Wake up | September 18, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Another Palin mess in Alaska. She is no reformer.
Read about it here:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/palin.arena/

Posted by: PJ | September 18, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Wake-up: The fact is that we are amassing an enormous debt and deficit due to the ill-advised Bush tax-cuts and the ill-advised Bush War (both supported by McCain) and you want to close your eyes and say, oh the top 1% is already doing enough! Fine, they can send their sons and daughters to war and they can have their children pay for the mess they'll be in. You are living in an altered reality and your plan seems to be to sink the US into more debt and more economic instability.

Posted by: jeremy | September 18, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Another Palin mess in Alaska. She is no reformer.
Read about it here:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/palin.arena/

Posted by: PJ | September 18, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Another Palin mess in Alaska. She is no reformer.
Read about here:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/palin.arena/

Posted by: PJ | September 18, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

How about the people in government showing their patriotism and commitment to American ideals and putting some of the money back into the pockets of "We the People"?

Why can't spending less be patriotic?

And if it's patriotic to raise taxes on those making 250k or more NOW, how long until everyone regardless of income level has "patriotism" forced on them?

Posted by: Typical White Elephant | September 18, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

The top 10% of Americans pay 71% of all personal income taxes. That seems "patriotic enough" to me, Joe.

It's surrre easy raise taxes on other people's hard-earned money, all in the name of "fairness" or "patriotism." Who cares abt the facts?

Enough is enough.

Posted by: Wake up | September 18, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Oh, I should have said FakeJakeDTroll: Thanks, but no thanks. JakeD is a registered Independent, who likes to hide behind that affiliation to distance himself from the decline and decadence of the Republican party. He's also a genius who graduated tops at the Stanford law school...and he likes to tell versions of the truth than are just on the border of a lie...and collect "treasures..." and golf...and he's retired and LOVES Bush and Cheney and is perfectly happy with all those policies...but, he's an Independent and don't forget it!

Posted by: jeremy | September 18, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

“We’re going to do a few new things also,” she said at a rally in Cedar Rapids. “For instance, as Alaska’s governor, I put the government’s checkbook online so that people can see where their money’s going. We’ll bring that kind of transparency, that responsibility, and accountability back. We’re going to bring that back to D.C.”

There’s just one problem with proposing to put the federal checkbook online – somebody’s already done it. His name is Barack Obama.

Posted by: Thor | September 18, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I am a troll

Posted by: JakeD | September 18, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

JakeD. Thanks, but no thanks.

Posted by: jeremy | September 18, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

I know Larry Sinclair personally. In fact, last time I was with him I was snorting crystal meth out of his butthole and snorting a big fat line of coke of off his erection.

I love to mix gay sex and hard drugs because I am a Republican.

I'm JakeD and I approved this message.

Posted by: JakeD | September 18, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Hooray for Michelle Obama - she made it to the Best Dressed list this year, just announced today. I thought she looked gorgeous and her style fab at the Convention... she always does look wonderful.

By contrast, Cindy McCain spent well over $300K on her wardrobe and jewels for the tacky GOP convention (that Nazi-style hate fest) and her hair looked like a hooker's.

Enter Palin and her poor white trash family - she may be together enough these days but it took her years of college/university hopping before she finally did graduate with a degree in journalism from....(drum roll please!) .... Idaho State.

Then we have her lovely brood of trailer trash, er "tribe" and their various woes -- one in trouble with the law so shipping off to fight in EYE-RACK, the other knocked up and forced (at rifle-point?) to marry her reluctant "fiance" at the last minute....

Let's have no more trailer trash, no more tacky displays of vulgar, ill-begotten wealth, and no more FAILED BANKING SYSTEMS and economic disasters: VOTE for the truly classy, intelligent and articulate ticket -- OBAMA-BIDEN.

Posted by: Mr. Binky de Houston | September 18, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

TexDem:

She did travel to Iraq (right on the border), TRUE.

She did kill the Bridge to No Where (in Sept. of 07, albeit Congress had stalled the project by withdrawing specific funds), TRUE.

She DID take a pay cut as mayor ($7,000, but I think the claim on this is that she hired a City Manager for more than that so she didn't "really" take a pay cut), TRUE.

She said she traveled to Ireland, actually her plane stopped to refuel (in IRELAND), TRUE.

She never said she built a pipeline, didn't take earmarks, or sold the plane on eBay (she said "I put it on eBay" which she did, the one bid fell through, so it was later sold to a private party), TRUE.

At this point, it's safer to assume you've got nothing.

Posted by: JakeD | September 18, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Jeremy -

I just smoked a huge hit of crack. Can I come over to your house and fondle your testicles? Would you like to fondle mine?

Posted by: JakeD | September 18, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: B | September 18, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Where does Caribou Barbie get off calling out anyone?


Heck, she still doesn't even have the balls to hold a press conference where she would have to use her little pea brain to answer quesions instead of just spouting off her Karl Rove written talking points.


Two bit third world dictators give more media access than Palin does.


WHAT'S SHE HIDING?!?!

Posted by: Janet Kyler | September 18, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Her worst lie is saying she is ready to be president

Posted by: TexDem | September 18, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Kimberly Peacock,

What is investment penalty, and how do "they penalize small business"

Posted by: ? | September 18, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, you get more and more desperate. I doubt you'll gain your "treasures" with these types of slanderous posts, but really, that's not what you're about anyway, is it? You ought to look deep into your hate-filled heart and do a little introspection. Your posts always seem to focus on the letter of the truth. Let me ask you, JakeD, in your estimate is there any more truth in the Obama the homosexual, or Obama the Muslim, than in Palin's claim of "thanks, but no thanks?" In other words, you like to ask if anyone can point to when Palin did not say "thanks, but not thanks" to Congress. Can you point to a time when Obama declared he was a Muslim or a homosexual. Why not hold yourself to your own standards?

Posted by: jeremy | September 18, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

I know Larry Sinclair personally. In fact, last time I was with him I was snorting crystal meth out of his butthole and snorting a big fat line of coke of off his erection.

I love to mix gay sex and hard drugs because I am a Republican.

I'm JakeD and I approved this message.

Posted by: JakeD | September 18, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Are we really governed and reported to by idiots? They keep saying that the Obama plan will give tax cuts to the middle class, but they provide an investment penalty, and they penalize small business.
What good is the tax cut if you have no income because there are no jobs? Obama keeps promoting Big Business and Big Government and we know scientifically that they are prone to cascade failures that can destruct the entire network on which they are based. We also know scientifically that networks such as living organism favor distributed adaptable networks because they are more robust and rarely suffer catastrophic failure.
Why is no one shouting from the roof tops the emperor has no clothes?
They are treating middle class Americans as if they are stupid, and are incapable of understanding the truth. What is more disturbing is that the media uses the authority principle to sell Obama and these authorities which have a stake in the status-quoi feed the same bull and sell Americans down the river.

Media wake up and do the right things by the country. Networks have certain laws that govern them. Look up Lazlo Barabasi and ask him about the dangers of centralized systems!
There is a scientific basis for why capitalism is superior to socialism, and why we need small distributed government versus big government. Centralized systems are useful only in generating standards.

Obama don’t tell me you are for the middle class, when you are just selling them into indentured servitude to big corporations! Show me how you will bring wealth creation to the middle class.

Posted by: Kimberly Peacock | September 18, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

People who make stuff have to borrow money from people who don't make stuff so they can buy the stuff they themselves made from the people who didn't make it, then pay interest they can't afford to the people who didn't make the stuff. The people who make the stuff also fight in wars against other people who make stuff so people who don't make stuff won't have to. The least the people who didn't make the stuff can do is pay some taxes without whining.
If the people who don't make stuff paid the people what they deserve, they wouldn't need to borrow money at all.

Posted by: Charles | September 18, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

JakeD
where to begin:
She said she traveled to Iraq, not true
She said she killed the bridge to no where, not true
She said she took a pay cut as mayor, also false
She said she traveled to Ireland, actually her plane stopped to refuel.
She said she built a pipeline, lie
She said she didn't take earmarks, lie
She said she sold a plane on ebay, lie
At this points its safer to assume everything she says is flase and see if it can be proved true.

Posted by: TexDem | September 18, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

So Phil Gramm, John McCain's supposedly banished economic guru and campaign chairman, has been seeking Ron Paul's endorsement. Paul's answer? Not in a million years.


Here Ron Paul is just a few minutes ago:

"I can't endorse somebody (McCain) that disagrees with me on all the major issues -- on the federal reserve system, on spending and taxes, and No Child Left Behind, and McCain-Feingold, and foreign policy especially. I mean I could never support somebody who thinks that its funny to say "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." That to me is not somebody I could endorse ever."

-Ron Paul - 9/18/08
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOb3cC2FVIg
.


Paul's strident non-endorsement is the biggest deal here, but there's another issue: what in the world is Phil Gramm doing politicking on John McCain's behalf? Hadn't he been banished to Belarus? Does this mean that John McCain now endorses Gramm's "Americans are whiners" comments?

Posted by: Bush + McCain = "W"orthless | September 18, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

TODAY MORE INFORMATION ABOUT BARACK OBAMA'S ALLEGED HOMOSEXUAL AFFAIR HAS COME OUT.

P.S. to ES - Hagel endorsed Obama long ago.

Posted by: JakeD | September 18, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Leftwing Voter Registration Fraud On Rise

Thu, 09/18/2008 - 12:07 — Judicial Watch Blog
For the second time in as many months a left-wing community group largely funded with U.S. tax dollars has submitted fake voter registration cards, this week in a key battleground state.

The Chicago-based Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), where Barack Obama worked as a “community organizer,” has long been investigated for falsifying information to register new voters during nationwide drives and authorities are especially vigilant in a presidential election year.

This week officials in New Mexico’s most populous county (Bernalillo) notified federal authorities that more than 1,000 fraudulent voter registration cards were submitted to the clerk’s office. ACORN, which pays workers for each registration, is the prime suspect since it has handled thousands of new voter registrations in New Mexico since January.


just like in the caucuses-massive fraud. People wonder wht this dem won't vote for BO the cheating thug.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Chuck Hagel joins the list of conservatives who think Sarah Palin is unqualified.

http://nahnopenotquite.com/

Posted by: ES | September 18, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

More Released today about Palins alledged affair.
http://www.hotpres.com

Palin pregnant again??
http://www.veeppeek.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

BTW: Sen. Biden -- she has done THREE interviews (ABC, Fox, and People). So, what do you think? Are you ready for October 2nd?

Posted by: JakeD | September 18, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

TexDem:

What do you think is her worst "lie"?

Posted by: JakeD | September 18, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Gov. Palin has also agreed to meet with Katie Couric. Once she does Brian Williams, what more do you want?!

Posted by: JakeD | September 18, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Um if Palin understood patriotism she she wouldn't lie to the American people every time she opens her mouth.

Posted by: TexDem | September 18, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company