‘Trickle down' questioned: Boston teacher Berta Berriz, here with her husband, freelance writer Ty dePass, says, “I would pay more taxes to have children well fed and children out of poverty.” She favors Obama. (Ann Hermes/The Christian Science Monitor)
Voters weighing Obama, McCain tax plans
Nearly 3 in 4 see taxes and budget deficits as 'extremely' or 'very' important in the 2008 campaign.
By Mark Trumbull | Staff writer/ September 8, 2008 edition
Taylor Griffin, adviser to John McCain
McCain adviser Taylor Griffin
Jason Furman, adviser to Barack Obama
Obama adviser Jason Furman
Melanie Stetson Freeman/Staff
Business view: Rhode Island company owner Ted Almon says political middle ground is best for the economy.
Related story and charts: Income-tax bracket creep, through the decades
With both John McCain and Barack Obama offering tax cuts, the 2008 election promises a boost for the typical family budget. But it could also strain the much larger budget of the US government.
Already America is in a deep financial hole. The nation has made big promises to future generations without a clear plan on how to pay. Will the next president keep digging that hole?
That’s just one of the fiscal questions that voters across America are weighing.
In Tulsa, Okla., photographer Chris Humphrey wants to see a plan that will spur economic growth. As Boston schoolteacher Berta Berriz considers what’s fair, she argues for higher taxes on the wealthiest.
In polls, nearly 3 in 4 voters see taxes and budget deficits as “extremely” or “very” important – a ranking not far behind energy, healthcare, and the war in Iraq. Tax policy experts say Americans are right to feel concerned.
“We’re eventually going to face this enormous problem, and huge measures are going to have to be taken,” says Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley. “It would certainly be better to have a smoother transition to a sustainable system.”
Yet in these next four years, Dr. Auerbach says, it’s possible that even a self-proclaimed “agent of change” in the White House will leave the thorniest fiscal problems unresolved.
Certainly, the campaigns themselves are talking much more about near-term tax relief than about tough choices for the long haul. And they are doing it in distinctly different ways.
Republican candidate John McCain calls for broad tax reductions for businesses and the very rich.
Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, has a more targeted plan aimed at low-income workers and the middle class. But if Senator Obama offers slightly smaller tax cuts, he offsets it on the other side of the fiscal ledger with significant new spending plans.
Neither candidate denies America’s long-run challenge: that the government will have a hard time supporting spending programs – notably for healthcare – that are projected to rise faster than tax revenues.
But they are relatively vague on how to solve the problem, even as they urge very specific measures that seem likely to deepen the fiscal hole.
Politicians often pitch tax cuts as a stimulant to economic growth. But it’s vital to consider, too, the economic consequences of government borrowing, say fiscal policy analysts.
“If the tax cuts substantially raise the national debt, the increase in borrowing by the federal government could crowd out private investment and consumers’ purchases of homes and durable goods, which could slow the economy,” warns a report by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group that strives for neutral analysis of the candidate plans.
The report concludes that both Obama and McCain appear set to follow President Bush in this respect: increasing the national debt.
Americans want balance
Surveys of public opinion suggest Americans want balance – not as in “balanced budget” but in a blending of goals.
Most see the income tax they pay currently as fair. But in January, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found the public split over whether those tax cuts have been “worth it,” since economic gains were offset by a rising federal deficit. And an April Gallup poll found strong support for tax hikes on upper-income Americans.
Jere Smith, who owns a Kansas City auto-repair business along with her husband, reflects some of America’s mixed feelings.
“You’ve paid student loans and worked hard,” she says. “Any tax that’s going to penalize us because we make more money than someone who didn’t has always kind of bothered me.”
At the same time, she complains that big corporations “have gotten way out of hand” and don’t deserve the additional tax cut that McCain is urging.
Economists, for their part, offer no clear consensus on where tax policy should head. They note that there’s no magic rule saying that governments should balance their budgets. But on one big point a consensus exists: It’s bad if the national debt grows too large – and if it keeps growing faster than the gross domestic product (GDP). That’s exactly what looms ahead, though not immediately.
McCain takes supply-side approach
McCain approaches fiscal policy squarely from the supply-side tradition: Cut taxes to encourage more economic activity, more supply of goods and services.
He wants to maintain the Bush tax cuts largely as they exist. Instead of repealing the estate tax, he would reduce it to 15 percent. The deduction taxpayers get for each dependent in the household (currently $3,500) would gradually double. He would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 percent, with the goal of bringing the US into line with other developed nations.
McCain says he’ll reduce spending below current forecasts with a tough review of all budget items and the elimination of earmarks that lone lawmakers insert into spending bills.
“Senator McCain’s economic policies were all designed and set up for one reason – to create jobs” in the private sector, says Taylor Griffin, a campaign spokesman on the economy. Lower taxes won’t “pay for” the tax cuts, but a positive “feedback” on the economy should cause federal revenues to come in better than traditional models forecast, the McCain camp believes.
On spending, “there’s a lot of fat to cut,” Mr. Griffin says. McCain promises to balance the budget by 2013. But his campaign has not specified the needed spending cuts.
Obama would also maintain Bush income-tax rates on the vast majority of the population. For households making $250,000 or more, the marginal tax rate would return to late 1990s levels – as high as 39.6 percent. The estate tax would stay at its current rate of 45 percent, with a lower exemption amount than under McCain. The capital gains tax would rise to 20 percent for many investors.
Obama targets significant tax breaks to modest- and lower-income taxpayers: About $500 cash back for workers on the first $8,100 in job income, eliminating taxes on seniors with $50,000 or less in income, a mortgage credit for people who don’t currently reap an interest credit by itemizing deductions, an expanded saver’s credit, and expansion of a childcare credit. To raise some offsetting revenue, Obama plans to close off more corporate tax breaks than McCain. His campaign makes no pledge to balance the budget.
Obama stresses equity
“The Obama tax plan is to be preferred not only on grounds of equity, but (because it is more fiscally responsible) it is also likely to lead to better economic performance,” says Lawrence Summers, an Obama adviser and former Treasury secretary.
But definitions of what’s fair and what will boost the economy differ.
Berta Berriz, a Cuban-born American who arrived in the US as a girl in 1958, doesn’t see evidence that lower tax rates in recent years have improved economic growth.
“This whole idea of trickle down … I haven’t seen it rain,” says Ms. Berriz, who teaches fifth graders in Boston.
And neither McCain nor Obama promise a big tax windfall directly for her or her husband, Ty dePass, who’s currently earning little as a freelance writer.
But for them, fairness means that society’s best off should pay more in taxes.
“My [students] are brilliant children with a lot of potential and the will to make it,” she says. But they are also children of immigrants who often work two or three low-wage jobs.
“I would pay more taxes to have children well fed and children out of poverty,” Berriz says. She says that, even though her own budget is tight. Her heating oil bill has doubled to $500 a month. She intends to vote for Obama.
Chris Humphrey sees a different picture of how the economy works.
Like Berriz, he’s far from rich, but he’s a successful wedding photographer near Tulsa, Okla., and is leaning toward a McCain vote.
For him, the ideal system is what proponents call the FairTax, replacing the income tax with a simpler tax on personal spending.
Short of that, he says the best path is the one that tinkers least with the economy’s job-creating machinery. On that score, Obama worries Mr. Humphrey, because of the plan to raise tax rates on people with high incomes – many of whom run businesses.
“For me personally, taxes are a huge factor, and I don’t think that a majority of Americans get how taxes really move the economy,” he says.
It’s not just what candidates say but what they might actually do that he’s thinking about as he considers future opportunities for himself, his wife, and their two young boys.
Many business owners around the country share Humphrey’s concern.
Impact on small businesses
Most small businesses don’t have net income as high as $250,000. But many successful ones do, and they’re often organized so that the income flows onto the personal tax return of the owner. These businesses are effectively taxed at the personal tax rate, not the corporate tax rate.
While not endorsing one candidate or another, Boston-area accountant Larry Nannis describes the implications for many of his clients.
“If you’re paying more in taxes,” he says, “then you have less money to do other things, be it grow a business, buy a yacht, or … [fund] a child’s education.”
That doesn’t mean that every top-bracket taxpayer is backing McCain.
Ted Almon, owner and chief executive of a medical-supply distribution company based in Warwick, R.I., says he leans more toward Obama than McCain, despite the prospect of a hit to his wealth in the short run.
His reasoning is that America’s interest, and his own long-run self-interest, lies in finding a middle ground on the political spectrum.
“I feel strongly that there is a balancing point somewhere between the far left, or social activists, and the far right, or fiscal conservatives, where the economy clicks at its best, which is to everyone’s benefit,” Mr. Almon says.
In recent years, a rightward tilt of economic policy has gone too far, he argues. “The middle class and working class are losing their ability to consume.”
For him, it’s a balancing act partly because he sees tough choices in all directions.
The budget demands fiscal discipline, but society also shouldn’t “be faced with dismantling the safety net,” Almon says. And if taxes went through the roof, it would squeeze out private-sector growth – “the goose that lays the golden egg.”
He echoes a tension felt by many Americans, who are leery of big tax hikes but also of big cuts in government services.
As they struggle to win voter hearts and minds, the candidates are selling their plans in connection to the immediate challenges many Americans face. A housing downturn and a historic rise in energy prices have dragged the pace of economic growth well below normal.
During the Republican National Convention last week, McCain criticized Obama for advocating higher taxes. It is true, according to the Tax Policy Center analysis, that Obama’s plan would raise $600 billion more tax revenue, over 10 years, than if the Bush tax cuts were all extended.
Still, the economy might recover before any new tax plan is enacted.
And for the long term, both candidates are seeking to appeal as politicians who can break the traditional mold – including on the looming fiscal crunch.
Whether solutions are forged by Obama, McCain, or someone else, they will require mold-breaking leadership.
The key to the fiscal challenge is healthcare (an issue that will be addressed in detail later in this series). Even assuming some slowdown in medical inflation, spending on Medicare and Medicaid appears likely to grow three times as fast as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over the next quarter century, for example.
The aging of America’s demographic profile also puts pressure, to a lesser extent, on Social Security. And to the degree that all these expenses add to the national debt, interest payments could soar.
How big is the problem?
At present, the federal debt is not unusually large as a share of GDP.
But if current fiscal trends continue unchecked, America might see federal spending nearly double, as a share of GDP, over the next three decades, according to the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office.
That’s a wide “fiscal gap” between promises (like Medicare) and current tax payments.
Economists generally say this gap is too big to simply “grow our way out,” although figuring out ways to boost economic growth would certainly help.
Bond rating a factor
One danger: If lenders someday stop viewing US Treasury bonds as “Triple-A” quality, the government would have to pay higher interest when it borrows in the future.
Solutions are within reach, but they may involve both more taxes and new spending controls. Delay makes the economy’s fiscal burden larger, and it would spread the cost less evenly.
“It’s an issue of distributing the burdens and benefits fairly among generations,” says Mr. Auerbach at the University of California. “Something pretty significant has to be done with respect to these entitlement programs. Some combination of taxes and spending changes.”
Part of the fix might be tax reform that balances or blends public goals: simplicity, economic efficiency, and fairness.
Another is to devise creative new ways to curb spending.
The alternative looks grim: Rising deficits could erode the pool of capital the economy needs for investing in things such as research, education, and new businesses.
“The general public understands the basic math problem,” says Diane Lim Rogers, an economist at the Concord Coalition in Washington, which promotes fiscal sustainability.
Without action, she says, “our children and grandchildren are going to face higher taxes or lower services.”
Reality check
The candidates have their proposals, but what will actually get done? Probably some of their tax cuts but not all.
Both major candidates want to maintain Bush-era income-tax rates on most Americans. With those rates set to expire at the end of 2010, a failure to do this could tar the next president and Congress as imposers of a mammoth tax increase.
But worry about federal deficits may impose some limits on tax cuts.
For one thing, remember the way an economic slump in 2001 caused the budget deficit to widen to unexpected proportions as dotcom-era tax revenue evaporated.
Moreover, campaign pledges to curb government spending alongside tax cuts have a way of going awry.
“I’m not sure anybody is going to make substantial reductions in spending. It looks to me like all the pressure is going in the other direction,” says one veteran watcher of budget matters, Stan Collender, a managing director at Qovis Communications in Washington.
“For anyone earning over about $150,000 a year, taxes are almost certainly going up regardless of who gets elected,” Mr. Collender predicts.
He says the top income-tax rate won’t go higher than where it stood when Bush took office – 39.6 percent.
Pollsters anticipate a more Democratic Congress, but many of them “are relatively fiscally conservative,” Collender says. And Senate Republicans may retain enough seats to use filibuster leverage against measures they oppose.
Comments
2. dan | 09.08.08
Obama’s plan will not work and I think he now knows it. He recently was quoted by AP as having said he is now reconsider his position on eliminating Bush tax cuts. Last week he blasted McCain for embracing it and now he appears to be doing the same.
Problem is…Obama has pledged much spending that is dependent on elimination the Bush tax cuts…so how is he now going to afford such expenditures? He can’t so he will have to reduce his spending proposals.
Obama seems to be saying in his typical round about misleading way that he is now for less taxes and reduced spending. Hmm…where have I heard that before? I know it was McCain at the RNC. Imagine that.
If Obama is ever questioned about his reversal…he will in all probability state “no no no…you misunderstand…I have always stated …blah blah blah. Like we are all to stupid to tell the difference between position last week compared to this week. Want to bet? I am giving 10:1 odds.
What’s next…vetoing bills that include earmarks? Obama is a candidate of change alright…by the time the debate happens Obama will be touting the same economic policy as McCain.
4. JP | 09.08.08
Thank you for a truly fair and balanced, and very informative, article. The Christian Science Monitor sets the example for investigative journalism when so many other “news” outlets are woefully lacking.
5. Cyndy | 09.08.08
Isn’t keeping on lowering the taxes for the past 8 years is what has gotten us into the mess that we are in now? How do you pay for things when there is no money to pay for it? Look at the Republicans record whenever they are in office–lowering taxes doesn’t work; and their spending like they had a “forever credit card.” Look at the Democrats record with Bill Clinton–it was pay as you go, and, what a surplus we had. Yes, Bill did mess up with being tempted by Monica Lewinsky–he took a bite out of the apple. But, as far as running the country, having allies, and having a surplus–no Republican has ever been able to match Bill Clinton. We had many people, in the Bible, who were tempted, and gave in. And, God helped them pull themselves up again, and go on. What the Republican Party has done to the United States is deplorable–they have screwed the United States, promoted a war–which John McCain strongly said we should go to–we have lost a lot of our allies, and, now John McCain has his attack dog spewing out things. Their campaign does not talk about what they can or will do. They have no plan–they keep taking from Obama’a plan, and talking about change. Obama was labeled as a celebrity, and, now McCain is alright with that with Sarah Palin. Please, America, wake up,and smell the coffee before the Trojan Horse tries to take over.
6. Hal | 09.08.08
You couldn’t be more obvious in your bias then your headline for this story. The letter M is BEFORE the letter O in the alphabet. Ever since I could read a newspaper stories would list names in alphabetical order. Not you. Not today. Why? You are biased.
If you wish to do a story why not the Auchi $ 27,000,000 loan to Rezko whom bought/ sold a house below market to Obama?
7. Luke | 09.08.08
An excellent, balanced discussion of the current economic situation we face and the positions of each candidate to deal with the issues. This is one of the most informative and helpful articles I have read in a long time.
8. Paul Stewart | 09.08.08
A fairly reasoned article. It would help to tell how much is going into everyone’s pocket in each program by income category across the spectrum. There are good numbers out there on that and Obama’s that is what shows how much better is Obama’s plan.
I think the ideas of no regulation, no taxes, let everyone run free without worrying about anyone else are over. Americans have a shared responsibility to clean up the mess. And, those that have been benefiting disproportionately the most, should be doing more to get things back on track.
It is moronically simple to understand that the Bushes, the Cheneys, the McCains, etc., are in this to protect themselves first. This is indeed not about country first for Republicans. They have the money, they have and want to keep the power. They will be chameleons in doing it. They will invent and attribute power to light weights and to puppets to carry the torch forward for a society that values keeping it all in the family.
I believe this election is indeed a test, but not one for Palin, not one for Obama, not one for McCain or Biden. It is a test straight from God for the American people. Will they pass or will they continue the march?
We will see…..
9. Frank US | 09.08.08
Do John McCain or conservative republicans understand, or respect the moral foundations of this country? The U.S. Constitution is abused by conservative republicans at every turn.
U.S. Constitution: Amendment I - Freedom of Religion
Right now, for the first time ever, your tax dollars are funding religious groups you may not agree with. To add insult to injury, conservative appointed judges have ruled that you do not have a right to challenge this expenditure.
Amendment IV - Search and seizure
Under the guise of court action against abortion, Conservative republicans had John Ashcroft subpoena all the medical records of literally thousands of women like you and members of your family. Conservative republicans invade your privacy every day by browsing your email and phone records. Unfortunately for all of us, they don’t appear to care about our U.S. constitution, and they certainly don’t care about your privacy.
Amendment X - Powers of the States and People
John McCain and conservative republicans have tried consistently to overturn States Laws. They used your hard earned tax dollars to destroy the will of the people of Oregon, and the famous “Death with Dignity” law; they lost, but undoubtedly will try again. Conservative republicans and John McCain do not respect States Rights. If your state votes for something conservatives don’t agree with they will use federal powers to overturn it regardless of how you and your fellow voters feel.
Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual punishment
Would you rather die, or support a government which supported and sanctioned torture? The founding fathers would rather have died. The founding fathers were proud to fight and die for our government: A government which specifically outlaws cruel and unusual punishment. Conservatives don’t agree with this philosophy. Conservatives are at odds with our founding fathers on this score, and too many others to count.
John McCain and the conservative republicans have already gone a long way to destroying the moral foundations of our country. I urge you to keep this in mind in the coming election as we rebuild our nation together by voting Democrat.
10. Diane Hamilton | 09.08.08
The problem with John NcCain is SARAH PALIN. She is so scary. According to actuary tables, John McCain has only one chance in three to live to age 80. He’s had the most lethal form of skin cancer(malignant melonoma) and he has smoked 2 packs of cigarettes for most of his life. Although his mother is 96, but father died at 71, grandfather at 61.So if he dies, and the chances are 66%, I would be scared to live in this country with her as the president. She seems to be a religious freak with ideas that are way over the top.
11. Chris | 09.08.08
Look…taxes, no one does it better the Gov. Palin. She taxes and gives the money to the Alaskan citizens. We want on that gravy train. She got $50 per barrel for the citizens and gives free corporate money to all. Got to love it. Lets impeach Arnie and get a commnie in California that believes in giving corporate profits to the people.
Who would believe the republicans would bring in the first true communist subversive to our government. The left should give this woman a chance.
Last year, 2007, Alaska’s legislature approved a major tax increase on those windfall profits of the oil industry. The state of Alaska has received more than $10 billion this year from oil revenue.
Thanks to the addition of these new taxes, 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’s a fancy way of describing wealth redistribution, i.e., downright communism. And that is real change we can believe in. Will she do the same for the Lower 48 states?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI
Congrads secession party just 6 months ago. 7 year membership as subversive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PizrJLV30yI&feature=related
God will punish America – her pastor knows America is evil just listen
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.
12. Brendan Steinhauser | 09.08.08
Who is the REAL Barack Obama?
Check out this new book that reveals the answer: http://www.amazon.com/Who-REAL-Barack-Obama-generation/dp/1438906056/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220927361&sr=1-14
13. Vicki | 09.08.08
Paul Stewart said, “I believe this election is indeed a test, but not one for Palin, not one for Obama, not one for McCain or Biden. It is a test straight from God for the American people. Will they pass or will they continue the march?”
Thanks, I needed that. I didn’t realize it that is what I’ve been thinking.
14. robetson | 09.08.08
to frank…
Get a latte and calm down.
Re: Amendment X
Nobody went after the “death with dignity” laws of Oregon. That law refers to end of life decisions made by the terminally ill. It has been a long accepted practice. The Terri Schiavo case was never a “death with dignity” case. It was a “right to privacy” case. Of course your probably believe only what you see on tv.
Torture has been utilized by the U.S. government forever. Ask what the rules of law were regarding torture under the Kennedy and Eisenhour administrations.
Search & Seizure…Did you know big business has accumulated more information about you than your momma knows? They know everything about where you live, your spending habits, where you travel, who you married, when you will retire, what you’ve been hospitalized for. It’s all out there.
Here is a link to federal spending. In what section do propose money is alloted to religous groups for religons I do not agree with? Is it funding any other group I don’t agree with? Like NPR?
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461566684/U_S_Government_Spending.html
No wonder you are scared - you are woefully misinformed.
15. Joe | 09.09.08
Both candidates I believe should cut taxes down. I and most of you won’t see any social security when we need it. If you know how to do math then do a little with how much you pay and see what you will get when it’s time for them to pay you back YOUR money! It’s a broken system and needs to be stopped and reformed. Medical spending is out of hand. I pay medicare but I personally make to much money to benefit from it. So while I pay through the nose for my insurance and medicare that I can’t use, I and every other tax payer out there is paying for the people that keep having multiple children when they can’t afford them, obesity cases and other obscene medical charges.
Handing out housing, food , medical and a check each month is a huge cost on our government and does not encourage the “kill it and drag it home” mentality. Yet these people are voting! The ones that don’t contribute to society but purely tax the hard workers. Wealth re-distribution is in no way an effective plan. And taxing anyone over 250k 39.6%?? If you worked your way to that kind of income and sacrificed and risked as much as it takes to get there and the feds want 99k from you? That is uncalled for. The people that complain over paying a few hundred a year or even a few thousand don’t have a clue where the money is coming from when they get a larger tax return than what they paid in. Wake up people. It’s small business’s and the freedom to start up your own dream that make this country great. Taxing and taking the people’s money to only give it away to wasteful causes need’s to end.
And to the person above, it wasn’t the government the founding fathers would die for it was their Country (They are NOT the same) And at that point in time the goal wasn’t to be a career politician as they all are currently.
16. ed | 09.09.08
To understand how to cope with the economy one only has to go back to the 80’s when the Christian Science Monitor ran what was then the best worldwide information television reporting in the U.S. When the budget crunch hit, the core mission demanded that this important and truly great service to everyone was terminated. Our government’s core mission is defined in the constituion. Let’s cut out all the extra’s. This country was founded on certain principles. one of which was that a person’s property couldn’t be seized and redistributed. Current tax law allows seizure of all property at the whim of a politician. There are no limits to the amount the government at any level is authorized to seize as long as it is defined as a tax. So what is a fair tax? I’ll live with fair as long as I get to define it. I’m sure everyone would agree to fair if they could define “fair”. In the absence of “my” definition, let’s at least try to agree on how much a person should be able to keep under all circumstances. Is at least fifty cents on the dollar earned for labor fair? How about a 60/40 split where the earner gets 60% and everyone else gets to take 40% even thoiugh they didn’t do anything for it.
17. Angelene | 09.09.08
6. Hal | 09.08.08
You couldn’t be more obvious in your bias then your headline for this story. The letter M is BEFORE the letter O in the alphabet. Ever since I could read a newspaper stories would list names in alphabetical order. Not you. Not today. Why? You are biased.
If you wish to do a story why not the Auchi $ 27,000,000 loan to Rezko whom bought/ sold a house below market to Obama?
================================
You should get your story straight before you pass out lies like your “imaginary mavericks,” Rezko did not sale Obama a home, another couple did, and it was not a deal that Rezko had anything to do with; according to the people that sold the home to Obama. Rezo walked through the home with Obama as a friend before he made the purchase.
Rezo’s wife sold Obama a portion of their yard, she owned a home next door, to enlarge his yard.
Maybe you should do your own research before you take to the right’s talking points.
18. Angelene | 09.09.08
I call from beneath the graves of the forgotten; the young lost lives, innocently dedicated to the cause of an unwarranted war of sacrifice and pain.
How can you question the patriotism of another, when you sat there and said not a word, while I was sent to kill the innocent, to slay a giant that did not exist, for my country?
That’s NOT Patriotism!
You said I would find weapons of mass destruction, sooner or later, one day or another, yet I never did.
How can you question the patriotism of another, when you sat there and said not a word, while my family lost all we owned because of an economy created by blood?
That’s NOT Patriotism!
Yes, you can drape yourself in red, white, and blue, but it doesn’t change a thing,
when greed and riches destroy the lives of your people, unpatriotic you remain.
How can you question the patriotism of another, when you sat there and said not a word, while the people lost their jobs, their homes, and their dignity; while you played political games?
That’s NOT Patriotism!
It is the soul of a man that makes him patriotic, not what he wears, it is what a man does that makes him patriotic, not what he says. It is man that looks beyond himself and feels the pain of others, then does what he can to make life better for every citizen of his country, this country, the United States of America!
That’s Patriotism?
© 2008 Angelene Frederick, all rights reserved.
19. Tim | 09.09.08
I love how everyone seems to ignore the most fundamental problem: out-of-control spending. Instead of talking about tax increases, how about cutting the frickin’ Federal budget by 12-15% across-the-board? That would be a good start, and then you could work on reforming the tax codes from there. Stop spending so much money to buy votes!
20. Republican VN Era Veteran | 09.09.08
Thank you CSM for an attempt to discuss issues.
Why do I feel like we have been caught in a whirlpool of Palin nonsense?
Palin is just a “tool.” Any real examination of her just wags us further from real issues, and from a considered examination of issues such as the economy.
This Palin stunt is already wearing thin. Bush endorses her. As does Rove and Cheney.
Rove best captured what the post-bounce hangover is going to feel like. (”I said that? Oh my Lord!”)
Rove opined that Governor Tim Kaine (Virginia) was not experienced enough to be VP, as he was once only the Mayor of the 105th largest city in the US, and that being Governor and Lt. Governor of Virginia was scant experience.
Indeed!
And the mujahideen in lipsitck got high marks for her “experience” from Rove.
Go figure.
The “Daily Show” produced a nice side-by-side airing of both of Rove’s heads.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card
21. C. Casperson | 09.09.08
If you are to write an informed article you should interview economists from the right and the left. I have been surprised to see the Monitor very clearly leaning left and not doing the digging that they are good at. This was a superficial article that did not go into the depth of each tax plan. I recommend your going to each candidate’s web site and examining the issues thoroughly. Both write a lot about their economic plans and tax plans. You could spend hours, and you would need to understand the economic implications of each one more thoroughly. If one could do this work without bias, you may come up with an understanding more truly informed.
22. dan | 09.09.08
Shared responsibility is the answer…but Obama is proposing a dog pile on the rich. How does taking money from the haves and giving to the have not’s reflect shared responsibility? It seems more like vote buying to me. Shared responsibility would be a flat tax. If we had a flat tax…it would end tax loopholes enjoyed by the rich and would truly represent a shared responsibility. The problem with articles like this is the intellectual dishonesty that gives the appearance of being balanced. The dishonesty is not explaining how significantly disproportionate the tax burden is already on the rich. Why doesn’t the CSM do an article on the current breakdown on who pays what percentage of taxes and what an elimination of Bush’s tax cuts will mean.
Many in the middle class will over the next 4 years get the biggest one time lump sum income from their parents estate. Just how will bringing back the death tax reduce their tax burden?
Very incomplete article.
23. Joseph K. Prince, Ph.D. | 09.09.08
Wake up Americans!!! Obama’s rosy rhetoric hides a dangerous plan that will wreak havoc on the American economy. Obama plans to return to the failed policies of high taxation coupled with an expansion of government spending. Worse, Obama says he is absolutely committed to almost doubling the capital gains rate — something he could easily accomplish with a Democrat Congress. When investors realize that Obama will raise the cap gains rate, there could be a stampede of asset sales as investors rush to take their profits now to avoid Obama’s doubling of the tax rates next year. Investors will run from the stock market and it would lead to a disaster among US businesses.
Obama makes no bones about his plans to go on a taxing rampage. He would increase the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to as much as 28 percent and that will cause businesses to fire employees and/or prevent new hires. Small business is a major source of jobs—he will ruin that opportunity. Obama said,” I will cut the capital gains tax on small business”…that’s pure nonsense! Small businesses DO NOT PAY Capital Gains tax…they pay income taxes. He does not understand economics and spouts out nonsense.
He wants to allow the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which effectively would raise taxes on Americans by tens of billions of dollars.
He also wants to do away with the $102,000 FICA payroll tax cap, which means anyone making over $102,000 would pay an additional 7 percent in taxes on earned income. And the loan dividend tax rate George Bush implemented? Under President Obama it will be DOA! He wants to tax retirees savings.
Anyone concerned about their wealth, their ability to continue living according to their needs, and the family’s financial well-being — and also that the American economy remains strong — vote for common sense and DO NOT VOTE for a socialist seeking to redistribute your hard earned income. That is communism!!!
24. D. Williams | 09.09.08
It would be irresponsible to vote Republican again considering the mess the Republican Party has created for our country. We’re in two wars. The economy is in shambles. The middle class has diminished. People are loosing their homes and jobs. Gas prices are ridiculous. Food cost is high and millions of people without healthcare. And Republicans want us to give them another chance. Enough is enough. Republicans can not be trusted. Republicans LIE. Republicans cause division amongst the population and LIE to the American people. The Republicans keep the feuding going on with the populist to cause distraction. This way people who are not actual able to think on their own will be caught up with the distraction and not paying attention to what the Republicans are actually doing to our Country i.e., taking us to war and robbing the wealth from the populist and lining Republican pockets. Think people. Don’t make the same mistake by choosing another 8 years of Bush/Cheney = McSane/Palin!
25. Dave Potts | 09.09.08
I’m all for streamlining the tax code and making it easier and cheaper for business to operate, and I don’t believe personal wealth should be punished, but come on! We’ve had a democrat heading up the executive branch for only 8 of the last 20 years since the Republican “small government” revolution of the late seventies. How much will it take to realize that the GOP isn’t delivering on its promises? Profit isn’t evil, but it’s time to wake up and realize that our economic woes can’t be solved by people who pay lip service to fiscal responsibility while running up the deficit and spending hundreds of billions, if not trillions, overseas.
26. Kerry H | 09.09.08
The solution is to drastically cut the Defense Budget. And I mean about 4%. I worked at the Pentagon and I can tell you that place is a money sucking hole. Reinvest in public works like roads and broken bridges. That kind of infrastructure building comes back 10 fold to the people.
Lastly provide 100% college degree education benefits to all Americans. A 2.0 is all that is needed. The educated people rarely need or want a handout.
27. Jack Cox | 09.09.08
It’s clear sound bites on the Presidential Candidates tax policies don’t provide voters what they need. AnalysisOnline provides a great analysis of the positions. Readers should check out http://www.analysisonline.org
Comment by Jack Cox - September 9, 2008 at 4:33 pm
28. Liz | 09.09.08
I’m not seeing much mention of the cost of a little thing called “the war”. It is costing billions - every month. It’s one of the reasons that we have the largest deficit in history. We have already committed our children and grandchildren to pay for that one. We need to get out of Iraq, responsibly, and quickly. Do that and suddenly there is a lot more money to pay for some of the basic services that are necessary in a civilized country. People don’t realize that every domestic agency, including our military, are stretched to thinnest of margins just to keep going. We are paying for the war in a lot of ways that most people don’t see and we need to think about this.
If we want roads and bridges that are sound, if we want to have warning about that next hurricane that is coming, if we want to be able to go to a dr when we are sick we need to make sure that we support and improve our infrastructure. The idea that we can just cut taxes and services to the bare minimums doesn’t work and let me tell you that we have already done that.
Obama’s is talking about raising taxes on the top 1% of the country - that is not the majority of us! Obama thinks that you should be considered rich if you earn over $250,000 PER YEAR while McCain doesn’t think you are rich until you earn $5M PER YEAR. How many of us actually earn $250K per year, not me, or any of my friends and I’d be lucky to make $5M in my whole career.
We need to spend and tax carefully, but we also need to pay for the war and yes that might mean raising taxes. We should have done that at the very beginning of the war. When A COUNTRY is at war, everyone should have to pay something. Our soldiers are paying for this war, their families are paying for this war, but what about the rest of us. We don’t want to be bothered, no more taxes for us. What about services for them when they come home without a leg, no more taxes for us. We can argue about the value of the war, given that the purpose of it has changed I know where I stand, but that doesn’t matter. If you want the road that you drive on to be in good shape, to have electricity, to keep up the ideals that make this country great then we have to pay for it. That’s a reality. Obama sees that and McCain is with George Bush, no taxes, no change, more of the same.
29. michelle | 09.09.08
This message is meant for a couple other people who responded above. Some complained that people making over 250,000 should not pay higher tax rates then people earning less. First of all there is a misconception that people making over 250,000 per year work hard. Some mothers and fathers work hard at several jobs and can still not afford healthcare or to send themselves or their children to college. Those who do work hard and make over 250,000 may have had the priveledge of attending college haven’t they. It would be nice if the people above realized that many of the people that would benefit from the tax increases proposed would be children. Growing numbers of children in this country do not have health care, will not have opportunities to play sports, live in safe neighborhoods, or afford college. Do you honestly think not helping children like this will make allow them to grow up into independent adults. The problems in this country are rooted from selfish ideals about financial wealth. Fortunately, my children will not have to worry about college, and I would gladly pay more taxes to help other children go to college or see a doctor.
30. Patriot | 09.10.08
Since it seems like we don’t have enough foreclosed homes and laid off workers, let’s vote for another 4 years of Bush. Who cares about the economy, Sarah Palin is a woman, a mother (so are millions of other women, but you don’t see them on other presidential tickets)!
People, stop the emotional nonsense and focus on the issues. Go read Obama’s detailed plan for our country for crying out loud.
What would you rather have? Cut taxes for those making over 5 million (=McCain/Bush/Palin) or cut taxes for those making under $250,000 (Obama/Clinton/Biden)?
And if that didn’t scare you, think of this - remember John Ashcroft, Bush’s attorney general? He’s been building hundreds of CONCENTRATION CAMPS right here in the US for US citizens who oppose the government to be thrown in indefinitely, with a capacity to hold hundreds of thousands of citizens. Legislature has already been passed legalizing this, but no, Sarah Palin is more important news. Just google it, blind America.
31. income tax cuts | 09.11.08
Why is it that Republicans always want to cut taxes for the rich? That makes no sense at all. I mean think about it. The rich pretty much dictate what people are going to make anyway right? They get to set the wages. So let’’s say someone make $30,000 a year and they pay $10,000 in income tax. That person actually only made $20,000 right? So let’’s say the govt gets rid of income tax for someone making $30,0000 or less. That person just got a raise yes, but that company wouldn”t have to give that person a raise for the next year, or the year after that. And that could be very beneficial to the company right. And think about this, wouldn”t that make it easier for us to compete for jobs with the rest of the world? If companies didn”t have to pay someone $30,0000 a year, but instead only $20,000 a year then they would be more inclined to keep maunfacturing jobs here than ship them overseas, right. It makes no sense at all to give tax breaks to those that dictate our wages anyway. They just get to make more money, and the workers get whatever the company wants to pay. I think Ron Paul is right on this issue. Getting rid of income tax, at least for low income workers might be the best move this country could make right now. You might want to think that over. To bring back jobs we need to lower the pay rate that companies are willing to pay here, and cutting the income tax for the poor would do that. Either way when income tax is cut the rich benefit, so it might as well be cut for the poor.
32. s rivera | 09.12.08
I see McCain take everything Obama says out of context and not telling the American people that truth about Obama plans maybe because he’ afarid that we the people will see that Obama’s plan is better. He would lower the middle classes taxes while doubling the riches. it’s taking more for the people that can actually afford it here is an example.
Under Obama’s plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes.
Under McCain’s plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama’s plan.
American people please open your eyes. Our future depends on it!
If you have anymore questions on your Canidates. go to Factchecks.org. it tells you both plans on the canidates. God Bless America!
Link:http://www.factcheck.org/just-the-facts/the_partys_over.html
33. Michael Hutchinson | 09.14.08
McCain will borrow the money for his tax cuts. Just as Bush has done. Where is that money borrowed from? The world, primarily China. This hurts america by weakening its leverage in world diplomacy. McCain may have military sense, but he has no economical sense.
Obama is right about his plan’s effect on working families. More broadly, though, the plan cuts taxes for 81.3 percent of all households in 2009, according to the Tax Policy Center. The TPC also says McCain’s tax plan would leave 65.8 million households without a cut, not 100 million.
34. ep | 09.15.08
The site http://www.anotherdamnblog.com has a good analysis of the facts of the Obama and McCain tax plans at http://www.anotherdamnblog/com/?p=7. The analysis if balanced and has sources.
35. Dylan Voltaire | 09.15.08
McCain’s plan will sell us down the river to communist China because it will continue to fatten the deficit that they own. Obama’s plan may not be perfect, but it is more right headed. The information can be found on the Tax Policy Center’s web site. Do not re-elect the big business only Republicans. They mean you no good.
36. Dylan Voltaire | 09.15.08
Post number 2 is another Republican lipstick lie. If you want to compare the tax plans, go to the tax policy center web page.
37. Chad | 09.16.08
Angelene wrote:
You said I would find weapons of mass destruction, sooner or later, one day or another, yet I never did.
====================
What about the 550 tons of yellow-cake uranium discovered this year? (http://www.nysun.com/editorials/iraqs-yellowcake/81328/)
Did you see the 60 minutes interview with FBI agent George Piro, who interrogated Saddam Hussein? You can see it at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml In it he tells how he did have WMD’s and was trying to build up his program.
C’mon people. We gave Slick Willie 8 years of failed diplomacy with Iraq. All it did was lead us to a war that even Billy-boy said it would come to.
38. Chad | 09.16.08
To “Income Tax Cuts”:
You need to understand that businesses do not “really” pay taxes. When the government raises a company’s taxes, they raise the price of their product, passing on to the next person down, who in turn does the same until it reaches the consumer. So in the end, it is you and I who pay those “business tax increases.”
And as for rich people setting the wages, I don’t remember the last time I was forced into working somewhere with no option to leave for a better paying job if I chose to do so.
39. taurine | 09.28.08
if your going to claim something get your facts straight first “What would you rather have? Cut taxes for those making over 5 million (=McCain/Bush/Palin) or cut taxes for those making under $250,000 (Obama/Clinton/Biden)?” Taxes are based on what you make there is no tax rate for people making over 5 million they would fall under 357,700. One other thing the top 50% pay 97% of this nations taxes.
2008 Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Single Married Filing Jointly
10% Not over $8,025 Not over $16,050
15% $8,025 - $32,550 $16,050 - $65,100
25% $32,550 - $78,850 $65,100 - $131,450
28% $78,850 - $164,550 $131,450 - $200,300
33% $164,550 - $357,700 $200,300 - $357,700
35% Over $357,700 Over $357,700
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
7. PA Governor Ed Rendell Blasts McCain/Palin - Page 9 - XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source! | 09.11.08
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Grimy | 09.08.08
“Freddie Mac! I loved his show! I am very sad that he passed away.”
–Sarah Palin, potential VP of the United States.