FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

H2O MAN wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McSame

Only the ignorant use that term...

That is right. Enlightened people use more educated terms, like liberaltard.

Barack Obama proposes to increase the top two individual tax rates.

Obama would increase the capital gains and dividends tax rate by 33%.

Obama has proposed Social Security payroll tax increases of 16% to 32% for families making over $250,000 a year

Obama’s proposed health plan would also impose a new payroll tax on employers.

Obama would reinstitute the "death tax" (estate tax) with a top rate of 45%.

Obama has also proposed several increases in corporate taxes, including a "windfall profits" tax on oil.

Obama proposes no cuts in any tariffs and several higher tariffs.

I doubt that either McCain, or Obama will be able to effectuate much meaningful change, because our system is designed to prevent that. Our system evolves and changes, but very slowly. McCain and Palin have demonstrated their willingness to risk personal defeat by challenging entrenched interests. Obama has not.

Obama’s proposed health plan would also impose a new payroll tax on employers.

Obama would reinstitute the "death tax" (estate tax) with a top rate of 45%.

“John McCain believes that insurance reforms should increase the variety and affordability of insurance coverage available to American families by fostering competition and innovation.

Reform the tax code to eliminate the bias toward employer-sponsored health insurance, and provide all individuals with a $2,500 tax credit ($5,000 for families) to increase incentives for insurance coverage…

Families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines, to maximize their choices, and heighten competition for their business that will eliminate excess overhead, administrative, and excessive compensation costs from the system.

Allow individuals to get insurance through any organization or association that they choose: employers, individual purchases, churches, professional association, and so forth…” 2

Actually, my quibbles about Congress isn't limited to those dominated by the Democrats. The Congress is (and mostly always has been) self-serving, partisan and unable to rise to national challenges. McCain has spent a good part of his life serving in the Congress where he has a well-deserved reputation for fighting corruption, waste and self-interest regardless of which Party, or politician is involved.

McCain's 'Maverick' Myth Is the Media's Creation

By David Brock and Paul Waldman, Anchor Books. Posted March 31, 2008.

The bizarre tale of how the media turned a crooked Republican into the mirage of a principled politician.

In 1992, McCain was one of three Republican senators to vote for Democratic campaign finance reform legislation (all the Senate Democrats except two voted in favor). The bill called for the provision of taxpayer funds and other incentives to urge candidates to abide by voluntary spending limits; it was vetoed by then-president George H. W. Bush, a veto that the Senate failed to override. In 1993, McCain again cast himself in the role of party rebel in the campaign finance debate. In deliberations over an identical measure to the one Bush had vetoed in 1992, McCain proposed amendments that caught the attention of the media. McCain offered one amendment that barred candidates from using campaign money for personal expenses such as vacations, mortgage payments, and clothing purchases, among others. Another amendment pushed for the campaign reforms, if enacted, to go into effect in 1994 instead of 1996, as originally proposed. Little noted was that McCain's amendment was identical to one that his Arizona colleague, Senator Dennis DeConcini (D), was set to introduce to the Senate, before McCain beat him to the punch by a day-a move that won McCain credit for the amendment.

The early returns to these maneuvers were encouraging. In 1993, the Washington Post noted that McCain was one of five "maverick" Republicans for his work on campaign finance reform legislation. Another Post reference two months later offered a continuation of the theme, describing McCain as a "conservative with maverick instincts."But if the media had taken a closer look, talk of McCain as a maverick may have been a little premature. As news stories at the time made clear, the 1992 campaign finance bill was preordained to be vetoed by Bush, making it easier for McCain and his fellow Republican rebels to back it. That motive became starker in 1993 when the Clinton administration, pushing a nearly identical bill, was told by McCain and his fellow "renegades" that they would support a Republican filibuster of the legislation.

Predictably, Clinton expressed his dismay at the "rebels" who changed their tune when faced with a bill that might actually become law. "The thing that particularly troubles me about this one is that several Republicans voted for a bill not unlike this last year which contained public financing," Clinton said. The Associated Press reported that Republican moderates admitted to voting for the original bill only because they knew it would be vetoed.

Eventually, McCain and his band of mavericks broke with their GOP colleagues on the filibuster, but only after the bill was gutted to remove most of the public financing features of the measure. The compromise legislation "left almost no one happy" and was derided by advocacy groups like Public Citizen and US PIRG as watered down. The bill eventually died a quiet death in the House. McCain's maverick gestures, though revealed to be less than substantial under scrutiny, nonetheless left their imprint on the media.

Asherman postures:
Obama has been absent and supportive of the Democratic Party line for the short time he has been in Congress.

Asherman wrote:
A McCain-Palin administration can be expected to resist efforts to enlarge the Federal government, and the bureaucracy. The Administration will make efforts to eliminate Congressional pork and earmarks. He will veto Bills that are wasteful of the tax payer's money, and I expect sincere efforts to reduce the number of bureaucrats on the Federal payroll. The proposals the administration sends to Congress will focus on items of substance; Energy Independence, tax reform, Social Security and MediCare reforms, etc.

Asherman wrote:

The McCain administration will draw a line in foreign relations that will reassure our friends and serve unmistakable notice on our enemies.

Ok, maybe the one I posted earlier was too long to read. Here is a side by side comparison. I urge you to consider the fact that TPC actually cites its sources when deciding whether or not to give it credence.

The Forbes piece you posted is not a comprehensive analysis but rather an opinion piece, as evidence by how much information they left out. One example, the estate tax. He dings Obama for bringing it back when McCain would also bring it back (though with a higher exemption and lower rate). He credits McCain with wanting to abolish the AMT when he is really just proposing to extend the 2007 patch, as does Obama.

"TPC has not verified claims made" along with citing the only sources used as Obama's website, McCain's website, and the NY Times. I think for now I'll stick with Forbes' take on it but I will look forther.

I agree that we should eliminate the bias toward employer sponsored health care, but it seems like the easiest way to do that is to just make all health insurance tax deductible, right? If my health insurance is no longer taken out pre-tax, but I get a $5000 tax credit, my paycheck gets smaller, I might get bumped up into a higher tax bracket -- increasing my effective tax rate, and I wont get any relief until April. I am not too crazy about that idea.

Because some of your family members are Buddhist doesn't make you more knowledgeable than I am after being a Buddhist for 45 years and doing graduate work on Oriental Philosophy and Religion.

Foxfyre wrote:

"TPC has not verified claims made" along with citing the only sources used as Obama's website, McCain's website, and the NY Times. I think for now I'll stick with Forbes' take on it but I will look forther.

The candidates websites would be where they would publish their proposals.

What sources is the Forbes article using?