McCain criticizes Obama's promise of tax cuts

Saturday 18th October, 06:39 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 111 Total Comments Show All

Simon_Foston at 08:54 PM JST - 19th October

"George W. Bush could have reformed the system any way he liked."

I really enjoy seeing posts like this. The Left spent 7 years accusing George Bush of abusing the executive powers his office grants him and trying to take over the gov't, the country and the entire world.

But when the economy goes into one of those inevitable periods of turmoil they accuse him of not having fully used the power of the president.

Well, what did he actually do to stop this from happening? It's not as if he had much trouble getting other parts of his policy agenda through Congress, like all those tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Some Democrats even voted for them. I'm aware that the administration wanted to introduce tighter regulation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003 but appears to have given up in the face of Democratic opposition. Don't know what difference it would have made to what all those banks were doing, but it doesn't sound like a bad idea. Why didn't they fight harder for it?
Simon_Foston at 09:14 PM JST - 19th October

jwills79 - Joe the Plumber wants to buy a plumbing business that will make more than $250,000 a year, thus subjecting him to an Obama tax increase. He is not a hypocrite.

Indeed not. Neither is he going to have trouble paying for health insurance, his kids' college fees or just about anything else he wants if he's earning that kind of money. But it sounds like he'll need it for all those back taxes he owes.
Sarge at 09:44 PM JST - 19th October

Simon - ( sigh ) Yes, indeed, Joe the Plumber wants to buy a plumbing business that will make more than $250,000 a year, thus subjecting him to a Obama tax increase. But he wouldn't have $250,000 to spend all on himself - he would have to pay all his employees and all other expenses out of that.
Simon_Foston at 10:46 PM JST - 19th October

But he wouldn't have $250,000 to spend all on himself - he would have to pay all his employees and all other expenses out of that.

Now here's where I admit I need something to be clarified. Is the idea to impose the extra tax on the business he owns or the money that he's personally taking home from it?
Simon_Foston at 11:03 PM JST - 19th October

P.S. I ask because it's been reported that the company Mr. Wurzelbacher wants to buy only earns about $100,000 a year (MSNBC) and Bloomberg News noted that even if Newell Plumbing did make $250,000 or more after all the necessary expenses had been deducted, he would be left with about $150,000 in taxable income.
sdmsec at 08:39 AM JST - 20th October

Simon,

Why quibble over the amount? It's completely arbitrary. IMO Obama should raise the taxes on everyone making over $80K and anyone who makes less shouldn't pay any. There's no guiding principle behind any of this, so just stick it to those who make more than you for your own bennefit.

This is also why I think we should one world government. Almost all citizens of every developed nation have it better than the rest of the world. So we should forcibly confiscate from Canada, U.S., Japan, western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, etc. and give to everyone else.

Of course, in the U.S. we have a Constitution based on principles of equality of opportunity and basic rights to own property and be protected in that right. However, the current and future (Obama/Dem) U.S. government has shown it can easily set aside the Constitution.

Flat tax anyone? Not that a flat tax is "fair", but at least it's not as criminal as a "progressive" tax. I'd actually prefer a citizen tax where every citizen pays their equal portion of the fed budget. This would really put taxation and representation on an equal footing.
SezWho2 at 06:31 PM JST - 20th October

Nippon5,

Lowering tax rates is not the same as lowering taxes. McCain does lower tax rates. If you want to claim that Obama's tax calculator--an approximation tool--is correct, then run some numbers which show that there is no tax cut under McCain's plan. Try $20,000, single, no dependents. I don't think you can argue that tax cuts run across all income brackets and use the numbers that you inputted for Joe as evidence that Obama's own approximation tool proves the point.

My point was that the co-director of the Tax Policy Center opined that Joe would probably not get a tax break under McCain. Now, I guess, would be the time to "doh" you if you are going to take the liberty of "doh-ing" me as you did in your previous post. However, if you want to say that the co-director was ignorant of the results derived from the Tax Policy Center approximation tool, I guess that's possible. However, I think it more likely that before he opened his mouth to pontificate on this topic he did some research of his own and took a finer cut at what the real numbers would be.

So, when you say there is no choice but to accept the conclusion that Joe would receive no tax break under McCain, I don't think that's true. Again, if McCain was confident that he would decrease Joe's taxes, I didn't hear him say so. Did you?
SezWho2 at 06:43 PM JST - 20th October

Sarge,

What economic recovery? Besides, that really wasn't my point, was it?

My point was that we spend more than we earn. Recent Republican administrations have chosen to increase spending while reducing taxes. Borrow and spend. This simply spreads debt to future generations. And no matter how much John McCain thinks he can trim the defense budget, there is no solution to this without unacceptable cuts in social programs.

To avoid this, we have to increase taxes or reduce spending. Either one of those will torpedo any economic recovery that we might have. The economy will recover when either the fundamentals have been realigned or when enough economic Prozac has been pumped into the system. The latter is not recovery. It is mood control and it does not solve the problem.
Betzee at 10:20 PM JST - 20th October

Recent Republican administrations have chosen to increase spending while reducing taxes. Borrow and spend.

This is a form of income redistribution which should be recognized as such. We are taking money from future taxpayers to pay for expenditures in the present. However, this is not going to be possible much longer; China's economic growth is slowing and their own domestic demand has been disappointing. They need to sell to us to keep buying our debt.

McCain himself opposed the GWB tax cuts on the grounds "it's the middle and lower earners who need relief." Any money which goes into their pockets will stay in the country. By contrast, in this age of globalization the wealthy may chose to expand their businesses overseas, in countries where government, as opposed to employer-paid health care, relieves them of a huge burden. Even those which invest in developing countries find the costs as a lot lower than what GM, which spends more on employee health insurance than steel, confronts here.
sdmsec at 07:04 AM JST - 21st October

This is a form of income redistribution which should be recognized as such. We are taking money from future taxpayers to pay for expenditures in the present.

Super point Betzee. I'd also like to point out that printing lots of paper money (deflating the value of the dollar) is also an income redistribution (money flows from savers to debtors).

What I'm looking for is the candidate who says "Not only will I NOT give you nationalized health care and subsidized green energy - but I WILL also take away corporate welfare, foreign welfare, remove our troops from overseas, and eliminate individual welfare." That's the person who'll get my vote.
Betzee at 09:40 AM JST - 21st October

What I'm looking for is the candidate who says "Not only will I NOT give you nationalized health care and subsidized green energy - but I WILL also take away corporate welfare, foreign welfare, remove our troops from overseas, and eliminate individual welfare." That's the person who'll get my vote.

Wasn't that sort of Ron Paul's agenda? He was dismissed as a fringe player this time. But he's already gearing up for 2012 when he maybe harder to dismiss.

If you look back at the debates about economic policy of the 1960s and 1970s, the trade-off is between full employment and inflation. Democrats tended to pursue policies which maximized job creation but with that came inflation. Republicans were the reverse.

Opening the door to imports enabled us to enjoy low levels of unemployment without risking inflation. But, in the process, it eroded the value of the dollar since we began to run high trade deficits, most recently with China.
sdmsec at 12:35 PM JST - 21st October

Wasn't that sort of Ron Paul's agenda? He was dismissed as a fringe player this time. But he's already gearing up for 2012 when he maybe harder to dismiss.

I hope your right about 2012. We might be surprised at how many people who are fiscal conservatives are willing to get behind him - despite big differences in social views (left v right). Ron's platform is to allow local people to determine social issues for themselves (based on 10th Amendment of Constitution) and limit federal government to those powers outlined in the Constitution.

In fact, this may be a platform that you and I could agree to despite many differences of philosophy. I really do appreciate and respect your posts even though I disagree with a fair number of them.
Loki520 at 05:06 PM JST - 23rd October

"Are you better off under George Bush or under the previous Democratic President William Clinton?"

Fact is that the vast majority of americans, making 250k or less a year are paying LESS taxes under Bush than they did under bubba. It's a fact. Head on over to the tax foundation and research it.
GJDailleult at 08:19 AM JST - 24th October

Poor "Joe the Plumber", getting taxed on his fantasy future income like that . Keep dreaming the American dream Joe, you aspirational voting Republican guy.
buttamimi at 11:32 AM JST - 24th October

McCain ain't got much left. I guess he realizes picking Sarah 'winkywinky' Palin, has backfired. Now all he seems to have left are robocalls: 'The McCain campaign has launched a second robocall campaign painting Barack Obama as terrorist sympathizer and a potential threat to national security.'How low can it go?