 |
 Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin
546 Votes - Start Date:
9-9-2008 - Last Vote:
10-20-2009
Description:It's that time again folks... the American Presidential race is on! Now that the official tickets are stamped and the signs and shirts are printed, Americans will be watching the campaign trails and hearing what each candidate promises to do if elected into office. The Democrats have nominated Barack Obama and Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate. To see where they stand on the issues, head over to their official website: http://www.barackobama.com/. Sen. John McCain chose Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate and the Republicans nominated them for the 2008 ticket. You can see where they stand by visiting their website here: http://www.johnmccain.com/ YouChoose wants to know what you think. Who do you think will make the best president? Who will make the change that America so desperately needs? After you vote, be sure to join in on the discussion. And, please, keep it clean. We all know how heated politics can become.
Loading People...
|
|
|
They already pay "somewhat more". the question is how much is enough 25,36,40, 50, or 70%?
Levetta - This comment from McCain, was while HE was protesting the very tax increases he is now insisting we need. At the time McCain was AGAINST the tax cuts, the wealthiest were paying 39.6% (so, in 2001 McCain wanted them to continue to pay the 39.6%, but Bush got his tax cuts bringing it down to 35%). So now they pay 35%. Obama wants to go back to the pre-Bush tax cuts, so BACK to 39.6%. A difference of 4.6%.
Jodi, thanks for the link on healthcare.
VOTE 4 McCAIN/PALIN
According to Congressional Budget Office data (cbo.gov), the Bush tax cuts, that McCain wants to continue, account for nearly HALF of the increase in the nation's deficit since 2001. Making these tax cuts permanent, as McCain proposes, will add $10 trillion to the deficit over 20 years.
I spent the afternoon going door-to-door campaigning for Obama. This is something that I have never done for any other presidential candidate. I HATE knocking on doors but I am willing to do whatever it takes to help Obama get elected.
Jodi, thank you for doing your part here by taking the time to clearly explain the difference between Obama's and McCain's tax plan. You've clarified a lot of things for me. It's all very complex and confusing, which is why it's so easy for McCain to pull the wool over the eyes of so many of his supporters. All he has to do is keep repeating the mantra of "My friends, Obama is going to raise the taxes of the working middle class and I'm going to lower them and/or give you tax credits." The thing I find most annoying is that he never goes into specifics about anything-his healthcare plan or his tax plan or anything else for that matter unless it's some figure he's trumped up to slam Obama. I'm still trying to figure out what McCain's $5000 tax credit for those who want to purchase their own health insurance really means. I've even gone to his website to try to figure it out and still can't make sense of it. Can anyone explain this to me?
Wow - GREAT for you!! Ann, I had wanted to ask you to post your earlier posting on your problems with paying for your daughters' education. It's a good posting but I almost missed it because I don't always scroll down. Others might be interested in it too.
- The whole tax thing IS really confusing. If I were you, or ANY voter, I would not be voting specifically on taxes. Both their plans could mean potential problems, though I think Obama's marginally less so, from what I have gathered from independent sources. I am mainly trying to point out to people that the huge fears the McCain campaign tries to promote about steeling from the rich is not as true as they make it sound. My husband and I are already thinking of where we'll put our money in order to lower our marginal tax rate (what we ACTUALLY pay) if Obama wins. We'll probably be able to buy our kids college (we have triplets, but they're only a year old) and use that as a tax shield for 2009 at least. After that, we'll figure other things out. Bottom line, we won't be paying 39.6%. And the point is, people shouldn't be worrying about the rich (or the corporations). They have MANY legal ways of significantly reducing their tax rates in the end. For example, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (cbpp.org)...."Government and independent researchers have long pointed out that the top statutory corporate tax rate is an incomplete
measure at best of the burden of corporate taxes. It does not take into account the generous depreciation rules, exemptions, deductions, and credits (some of which are sometimes termed “loopholes”) that corporations may be eligible for."
I'll put up another posting on healthcare.
Here you go, Jodi.
Submitted by Ann S. on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 13:35
But, to me, the bottom line is that it should be EASY to pay for college. I'm not saying it should be easy to get through it from an academic standpoint. But making it easier significantly widens the population of people who would do it.
Jodi, I absolutely agree! I live in Ohio where the least expensive 4 year university education now costs approximately $18,000/year. That is strictly for tuition, room and board and does not include books and fees which run another $2000/year. Then there are living expenses on top of that. My daughter was an honor roll student throughout high school. She graduated 6th in her class. She chose the least expensive state school that also offered her the best scholarship for her college career. Her father and I (who are divorced) still have to come up with approximately $10,000/year, which is difficult on our incomes. I am self-employed and he works for the county. The school my daughter attends is in an urban area where a group of students were recently robbed and shot at while walking just off-campus. My daughter is afraid to venture out of her dorm after dark and won't take any evening classes.
She is discouraged and unhappy there. She doesn't feel challenged by her classes or classmates. She says that most of the student body seems much more interested in partying than studying. She would have thrived in a small, liberal arts college or ivy league school where the focus is on academics. Unfortunately, the prices of those schools are way out of reach for most students-running $35,000/year or more for in-state tuition and thousands more if you choose to go out-of-state.
She wants to be a middle-school teacher. She will be a wonderful teacher but she'd spend years of her working life trying to repay student loans if she'd chosen to attend a private institution or even some of the state-supported schools in Ohio.
My sister lives in Virginia where her daughter recently graduated from an excellent university where she paid $12,000/year. I attended Miami University, a state university in Ohio, many years ago and loved it. Today, tuition there runs about $24,000/year. My daughter couldn't even look at that school. Students should not have to pay $100,000 to attend a state university. The system is definitely broken.
I have never once heard McCain or Palin talk about increased spending for education except to say that they couldn't be expected to fund every "special-interest" group out there. I hardly think that college students, our future, are a special-interest group.
Obama wants to make educating our children a priority. That's another of the many reasons I voted for him. He has consistently shown me that his priorities are in the right place.
I think the best website to get non-partisan information is factcheck.org You can just type in, for example, "McCain healthcare" in the upper right box of the website and it will bring up info on that.
Here is something from that website:
-"Independent studies generally agree on one thing – Obama's plan would cover more people. But they differ widely on how much each plan would cost, and particularly on how McCain's plan to change the tax rules on all existing employer-provided coverage would work out. One study estimated that McCain's plan would cut the number of uninsured Americans by 21 million, while another put the number at only 1 million."
Go to this website and there is an excellent chart summing everything up.
http://www.health-insuran ce-carriers.com...
It won't seem to post the entire website. Let me try again http//www.health-insurance-carriers.com/ blog/health-care-john-mccain-vs-barack-o bama/
Time Check. Obama is the superior choice. America is to far to the right and we are paying for it dearly. I recommend most folks disregard the pablum spouted by conservatives. Their policies are bankrupt and if continued WILL ultimately bankrupt not only America but the world.
Levetta - I don't have to make things simple for you. You are on the right track. A smart lady.
Specifically, Obama wants to raise taxes on income, capital gains, and dividends for families earning more than $250,000 annually. Under his plan, the top two marginal tax rates will increase from 33 to 36 percent and from 35 to 39.6 percent, while both the capital-gains tax and dividend tax will rise from 15 to 20 percent. According to the plan, the extra revenues generated by these tax increases will be redistributed to lower- and middle-income people through a hodge-podge of refundable tax credits. In the meantime, these “soak the rich” tax rates will do widespread economic harm.
On the other hand, by maintaining low tax rates and cutting certain tax rates that remain too high, as John McCain proposes to do, the economy will remain poised for growth. Looking long-term, McCain proposes to lock in the Bush tax rates of 2003 and slash corporate tax rates. For the short-term, he proposes to cut the capital-gains tax in half for a two-year period, from 15 to 7.5 percent, a stimulus measure that would spark an immediate boost in equity values.
The dire economic situation in this country is proven to have been precipitated by conservative Republican supply-side (also termed "trickle-down," or, in Reagan's day, "voodoo") economics. McCain would adhere to these failed principles and must not be elected!
"Soak the rich" is a ridiculous statement. Why do you think Warren Buffet, one of THE RICHEST men in our country, was able to pay LESS taxes than his secretary? It's called tax deductions and credits, and the more you buy, the more your effective tax rate can be lowered. Read my postings below.
When Warren Buffet writes an extra check to the treasury for a billion or so, I might listen to him about MY taxes. Until then, he's just another wealthy guy with tons of tax shelters who writes of just about everything in his life as a business expense. And if any of you would like to throw more money down the rathole, be my guest. They'll take your money.
There's no virtue in advocating charity with others money.And there's certainly no virtue in saying you're willing to do good things with your own money only if the government puts a gun to your head and everyone elses Obama/Biden do just that while giving next to nothing to private charity.
So please spare me self-righteous nonsense and irrelevant anectdotes
Barbara - The point is that Warren Buffet CAN LEGALLY use tax shelters - THAT'S THE PROBLEM. If you reduce his taxes without changing tax laws, he will pay a lot less in taxes than you will - LEGALLY. That's okay with you? Tax shelters are legal, and all rich people use them (including me).
Here's the thing: If you want to lower taxes on the rich, great, please do. But if you do that WITHOUT reducing tax shelters - the rich will pay little to NO taxes, because they will continue to be able to reduce their effective tax rate to the point they will be paying less than someone at the level of poverty. When you keep the rich marginal tax rate a little higher, it forces them to find tax shelters (ie., SPEND THEIR MONEY). They buy homes, donate to charities, open high interest money market accounts that affect stock markets. These things are GOOD for the economy - it puts their money back into the system. But, fine, lower their tax rates, but you better take away their avenue for multiple deductions which lower their effective tax rate even further - or AGAIN they will get their effective rates to below poverty level rates (because they can afford the big deduction items).
Did you get that from a McCain website? Because according to a respected, INDEPENDENT GROUP of tax-policy experts, McCain’s plan would balloon the deficit and provide a windfall to the wealthy while affording only nominal relief to middle-class taxpayers. Again, read my postings below about why the wealthy are not as effected by the tax increases as McCain wants you to believe. I know, I am in that tax bracket that goes up to 39.6%. Obama is just going back to the taxes of the 90's under Clinton.
I disagree with ALL your assumptions. The CLEAR FACT is that the policies of the right have FAILED. That is not up for debate, it is FACT. Americans deserve National Health Care and McSame is a Neaderthal in this regard. All countries in the modern industrial world today enjoy National Health Care to one degree or another EXCEPT America and they all spend less per capita than we. Your ideologies are deeply flawed and your cause is lost. I also have to laugh that you dont mind "soaking" middle class. Social physics will ultimatrely deal with "the rich". History proves those that disregard those axioms end up with their heads in wicker baskets.
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."
Mr. Barack Obama will be the best Président of U.S.A of hold time after Mr. John F. Kennedy. He is very intelligent, very naturel, loving, family gus and he will help the hold work to gate better after a very bad time we are in now. I'm Canadian and I hope that you will elect november 04, the best Président Mr. Barack Obama, the only one
I will post my own personal analogy again.
Submitted by Levetta F. on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 17:07
Anything worth having is worth working for. That is what I believe in, hard work, I do not believe in stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. I do not believe in punishing hard work and rewarding those who expect a handout. Bush did not put us here government handouts did. My analogy would be if you and your family have two tv's that you worked hard and saved for and a burgular decided you have two I have none so I am going to take one of your tvs for myself. Would that be ok with you and your family? It is not ok with me. I would like the option of helping who I choose, not who is chosen for me.
The assumption that people who make the most money work the hardest is fundamentally flawed. You are saying that your sympathies lie with the rich executive who rides around in private jets rather than with the man (or single parent) working three jobs to feed and clothe his/her children and give them basic health care. I'm glad your life is so leisurely. Not everyone is that privileged. Those of us in the latter category will be voting for Obama - after we get out of work!
Maybe I can make this more simple.
My marginal tax rate last year was 35%, yours was probably around 17%, I'm guessing. My effective tax rate was 26%. The effective rate is what I actually paid AFTER all of the deductions are taken. Someone making LESS than $170,000.00 has a marginal tax rate of 25% (not much smaller than my effective). Here's the thing....The reason I pay a much less percentage in REALITY is because I can afford multiple mortgages, and large charitable donations, etc. - You cannot. These things bring my ACTUAL tax rate way down, you cannot afford the things that bring your ACTUAL tax rate way down. Moreover, I can afford my lawyer who is also an accountant to prepare my taxes and find all the deductions he can - bringing down my ACTUAL tax rate. As my deductions increase, and yours remain the same (as they will because you can't afford to do anything but get by and feed your family) our ACTUAL tax rate gets closer and closer together, despite the huge difference in our incomes.
I am NOT talking about NOT working for a living.
You are a smart lady who grasps the true reality of the situation. Thank you for lending a voice of reason amid the hysteria.
Submitted by Levetta F. on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 18:20
You are obviously a well educated lady and very knowledgeable on taxes, with that said, I am sure you know that with my income I received a refund each year which makes my tax rate 0% in my book. I also would be in favor of a flat rate or fair tax plan. At least everyone including me would be paying our fair share. Just curious what do you think of the inheritance tax?
I don't know that much about it, I have never received an inheritance. But my gut would question taxing inheritance or estates. The money was obviously already taxed when it was earned, so taxing it AGAIN when it's passed on doesn't sound right to me. But most fortunes these days are earned, rather than inherited, and rarely survive past the second generation anyway.
Just because you received a rebate from the IRS, doesn't mean you didn't pay any taxes....though you probably realize that. But, if you ask me, if you're just above the poverty level of income, you shouldn't pay any taxes and if you get a check from the IRS even though you paid none, I am okay with that!! You ARE working, you ARE producing, and you are trying to get ahead. You can call it a "hand-out", but I like it being call a "hand-up".
Well maybe you should research inheritance tax since you seem to be good at it. Obama wants to reinstate the inheritance tax which means some people will have to sell their family farms to pay it. You are right taxes are already paid on that money. Also the estate has to pay the inheritance tax and the recipient of the inheritance has to pay income tax on it also. Check out Social Security: how it was originally set up and see who has made all of the changes to it and got it in the situation it is in now. Hint: It was not the Republicans. I am interested in what you find out. Please Post your results. Start with FDR
McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit MORE than everyone else. money.cnn.com
The Chicago Sun Times: Under John McCain's plan, the rich would pay MUCH less than they do now, the poor and middle-class would pay a bit less, and the federal deficit would GROW, the study found.
Factor the greater tax benefit for the rich under McCain and the ALREADY greater tax shields that the rich have.
To Doug M.
That was the point it is shameful to slight the person who worked for the money and give it to the person who didn't.