McCain warns Obama is big taxer

Saturday 25th October, 06:09 AM JST

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

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 105 Total Comments Show All

SezWho2 at 08:16 AM JST - 26th October

Wolfpack,

Obama is not at war with those who are successful. And many of those who are successful are not at war with him. It kind of beats me how people can reconcile what they refer to as his support by rich elitists (who, never mind his $10- and $20-dollar supporters, are quite successful) with his being at war with the same.

I think some very grumpy ideologues, some remarkably miserly high-income folks and some easily led party faithful may be ready to go to war with Obama. But the charge that Obama is at war with his own class seems rather fanciful.
Sarge at 09:24 AM JST - 26th October

It's been a week and I still haven't received a reply from anyone in the Obama campaign to my question, "How can Obama give a tax cut to 95% of American workers when 40% of American workers don't pay taxes?"
yabits at 11:07 AM JST - 26th October

Wolfpack writes: "With a few exceptions, government is not a requirement for individuals to join together for some common purpose."

Unless, that is, the purpose is to establish a government. Refer to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

"There is no coercion involved when individuals decide what is most important to them."

Well, those in the newly formed US nation who wanted to remain loyal to England were certainly coerced to leave it. I am saying this in response to your claim that America isn't what it used to be. In reality, there is greater freedom now for most people than ever before.

"Therefore, the government uses it's power of taxation to coerce the minority to support that which it does not wish to support."

Those things are set up in the Constitution. People elect representatives to Congress and they act on behalf of the people to pass laws that, most of the time, most people can support. You sound very much like a whiner who complains that it can't be your way all the time.

"It is well documented that those who oppose big government are much more likely to give to charitable organizations to address the needs of society."

You gave the example of Joe Biden. He's small potatoes. Three contrary examples of people who do not oppose big government and who give billions are Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros. There are many more examples.

"Why can't Liberals just give more to charity instead of insisting that everyone adhere to their priorities?"

Now, that really does sound like whining.
TonyUS at 02:57 PM JST - 26th October

I like to read all this anti-Obama BS, because all I can do is smile. Because.. look out Obama is coming.:-)

Yours and mine,,, Next president of the United States of America, and it is about time we are united again as a people
goodDonkey at 08:39 PM JST - 26th October

Wolfpack

So you were not in favor of the bailout of the banks? Our financial markets are teetering now. In all likelihood they would have collapsed if our government had not purchased the huge banks they did. We already know what America has looked like in the past when the financial markets crash. If you don't agree with the bailout there is really no need for discussion because you lack understanding of the fundamental economics that are required to sustain our way of living. If you do agree with the bailout. Then you are in fact engaging in class warfare. Let the government give to the rich entities but not the poor. Most of the poor are working poor. It was the a Democratic administration who cut welfare as an entitlement. I did not want to go there but Socialism is a lot less about providing for those in need and a lot more about government ownership. Calling Obama a socialist is just the latest in a series of gimmicks. Bush has organized the most socialistic action our government has taken in many decades. Like I said before Obama made a gaffe by using the word "redistribution." Kudos to you and yours for capitalizing on it politically. However don't try to sell it on here where intelligent people will rip that B.S. to shreds. I agree with what Bush did by purchasing banks but it was still the most socialistic action taken in a very long time. Drastic times call for drastic measures. Those who think they can let the financial markets fall and rebuild them do not realize that the effect on the common working man during the depression was immense, deep and long in duration. What Obama said is what socialist do; they redistribute the wealth. Obama has no plans to do any thing but change the tax structure and that is what he was talking about. That is not socialism. He made a gaffe. So the NeoCons can continue to be dishonest but absolutely nothing that Obama has proposed in any way resembles socialism. Bush engaged in an act of Socialism.
SezWho2 at 07:56 AM JST - 27th October

Sarge,

Keep trying to get that answer.

Your question is picayune and not really to the point of what Obama is talking about. I think you would have been playing "gotch" economics here. I wonder if you have even sat down and run the numbers through the various tax calculators or if you have tried to do the work.

Have you considered that if the earned income tax credit increases, low-income, $0 taxpayers may have their tax reduced? I don't think you have yet commented on this, despite previous suggestions that this might be so. Or maybe you don't believe in negative numbers?
TonyUS at 02:24 PM JST - 27th October

A person can be successful making under 250,000... 5,000 dollars a week.. Damn I feel sort of trash and one of the unsuccesful..

Who are you guys trying to kid?

THose that make 250.000 or more a year can live just as mighty with a 2% tax increase as they did before and those making under can live even better than they did in the past. Plus we hear we are the highest taxer of the world when it comes to large corporations, but on the other hand it is fact that there are so many loop hole s that these large corporations are lucky to pay any taxes what so ever in the end. You can break it down as much as you wish, but Obama’s goal is to side with the common people of the middle class that go to work everyday trying to provide their families a living, and trying to give them a break on taxes, while those with excess will not be hurt in the process, as many wish to try and overstate the negative impact which is NONE!

The only negative any of you have is he is a Democrat, or the racism factor that he is black. Die hard republicans will never change while those in the middle will vote for what is right instead of blindly casting a ballot.

Those against Obama's economic plan, Hey can I borrow some of your 250.000 or higher dollar incomes??? hahaha

I find anyone that is against this plan to be either filthy rich in debt to there ass living in a fantasy and have nothing but greed imbedded in their souls. When someone stands for give more to the rich and less to those less fortunate, I find that a moral issue. But hey we all have our down sides as a individual.
ca1ic0cat at 10:33 PM JST - 27th October

All you guys who want to live in reality should check Obama's voting record, which is about as left wing as you can get. Everybody is hoping that Obama is as good as his word. I'm betting his actions are better indicators.
NetteMarie at 10:35 PM JST - 27th October

What's wrong with trying a little left-wing?

We've seen what the right wing can do, these past 8 years.
Wolfpack at 07:18 AM JST - 28th October

Tony writes: I like to read all this anti-Obama BS, because all I can do is smile. Because.. look out Obama is coming.:-)

Yours and mine,,, Next president of the United States of America, and it is about time we are united again as a people

Yes, Obama will almost certainly be the next president of the U.S. but that doesn't make me smile. He will not unite Americans. Although if he becomes president he will be my president; I will not fall in line behind his redistributionist (read: socialist) policies. The country remains very much divided ideologically. Anyone who questions Obama's policies are almost always called a racist so don't expect the next four years to bring much unity to the country.
Wolfpack at 07:46 AM JST - 28th October

NetteMarie says:

What's wrong with trying a little left-wing? We've seen what the right wing can do, these past 8 years.

I get your point but the problem is that the so-called right-wing has been spending just like the left-wing. Can anyone actually make the case that the government doesn't spend enough? I don't think so. Instead of spending, why don't we try not spending. How about actually reducing the size of the government. Not just reduce the size of the increase, but a reduction in the actual amount the government spends.
Wolfpack at 08:02 AM JST - 28th October

TonyUS says:

I find anyone that is against this plan to be either filthy rich in debt to there ass living in a fantasy and have nothing but greed imbedded in their souls. When someone stands for give more to the rich and less to those less fortunate, I find that a moral issue. But hey we all have our down sides as a individual.

I am not filthy rich and I do not live in a fantasy world. I just don't believe it is the role of the government to take money from one person and give it to another. It is not greedy for a person to want to decide what to do with their own money. The greedy are those that are envious towards those that work hard for their success and who use the government to take someone elses money for their own benefit. Socialists have "envy" embedded in their souls.

There is no way that Obama can pay for a nationalized health care system and who knows how much for other programs to "redistribute wealth" without taxing those well down into the middle class. I think that it is right that America supports the elderly and the indigent. However, Obama wants every American to conform to his notion of a decent society. I think each able American should be allowed to choose how they want to live - without the government making those decisions for them.
Wolfpack at 08:29 AM JST - 28th October

goodDonkey says:

So you were not in favor of the bailout of the banks?

No. I don't think that $700 billion will have much effect on the economy. The economy has continued to decline despite the bailout legislation.

If you don't agree with the bailout there is really no need for discussion because you lack understanding of the fundamental economics that are required to sustain our way of living. If you do agree with the bailout. Then you are in fact engaging in class warfare.

There are plenty of economists that didn't support the bailout. I am sorry to hear that you are so closed minded that you are not willing to discuss an important topic - I guess you are an expert in economics.

It was the a Democratic administration who cut welfare as an entitlement.

Yes, but not until it was blocked by a Republican Congress. Liberals voted against it.

I did not want to go there but Socialism is a lot less about providing for those in need and a lot more about government ownership.

I've heard this point before and I can understand it to a degree. However, when socialism was originally thought out in it's most conprehensive form by Marx and Engels, economies were overwhelmingly agrarian and industrial. However, the American economy is largely oriented towards services. That is where Socialism comes in for Obama's agenda. One example, health care is at least 7% of the US economy. Obama is going after that chunk of GDP. By the way, the US government now owns 80% of the countries largest insurance company. With the vitriol that Liberals hurl towards the insurance industry each election year, there is no telling what Obama and a Liberal Congress have in mind for that entity.

Bush has organized the most socialistic action our government has taken in many decades.

You must be referring to the prescription drug plan. You are so right about that. It is Bush's worst decision as president and very damaging for the long-term economic health of the country. Along with the looming collapse of Social Security and the funding short-falls for Medicare and Medicaid, why in the world would the US want to get even deeper into the health care business? At least Bush tried hard to reform Social Security; but Democrat's have no interest in reforming it.

Obama has no plans to do any thing but change the tax structure and that is what he was talking about. That is not socialism. He made a gaffe.

He didn't make a gaff - he simply stated his philosophy. I know that it is extremely difficult to find out anything about Obama because he has very little time in the Senate and has guarded his past record very closely. He want discuss anything about his associations or thinking while in college. Anyone who asks about his churches black liberation theology (which is basically Marxist) is called a racist. Socialism is simply what the man believes in but he knows he has to dance around it to get elected.

Bush engaged in an act of Socialism.

I agree and I have opposed the bailout and the prescription drug plan.
SezWho2 at 12:30 PM JST - 29th October

Wolfpack,

I don't think it's true that anyone who questions Obama's policies is called a racist. What I think is true is that many people question the motives of those who so badly misrepresent Obama's policies or who imagine from his voting record and incidental associations that an Obama presidency will bring a slippery slope slide into socialism or other "un-American" behavior.

About 6 to 8 weeks ago I had a discussion with either you, WhiteHawk or USNinJapan (or some other decidedly military sounding person). The subject was whether Woodrow Wilson--the ubiquitous name on schools of my day throughout middle America--was a socialist. I was assured that he most definitely was because he nationalized the railroads. I said no, that this was designed as a temporary emergency measure and that governments tend to do what is necessary in an emergency. I was then assured that in emergencies, liberals nationalize and conservatives hire contractors.

But that was before the big collapse, before the request from a supposedly conservative administration to borrow money to nationalize components of the financial system. Now I recognize from your post above that you don't agree with this particular rescue plan. But, according to the economists that I have read there are only two prevailing views--let the market right itself or intervene with massive infusions of capital, with $700B probably not being enough. What government is going to choose the self-correction avenue? Only an extremist government, in my opinion.

Socialism is everywhere around us. Redistribution is everywhere around us. Examples: the progressive income tax, the tax differentiation between single earners and married earners filing jointly in single earner families, the deduction of mortgage interest, etc. Obama wants to change the degree of progressivity in the income tax. His proposal is neither draconian nor is it a disincentive. He does not want to redistribute income so much as he wants to redistribute the redistribution.

But about one thing you are right. You do know his philosophy. Everyone does. It's right there on his web site. Now you can postulate a secret agenda but if Bush--with the most secretive administration possibly ever, an increasingly conservative court and a Republican congress--was not powerful enough to transform the US into the neo-conservative's land of milk and honey, US checks and balances are still working. Why should they suddenly fall apart under Obama?
TonyUS at 06:10 PM JST - 3rd November

wolfpack redistributing money is all what the government does with taxes. From all its spending as the money is collected, it is distributed out and yes to many social programs. I see nothing wrong with rolling back tax breaks to the wealthy, as many have stated, especially for large corporations, the number of loop holes in the tax system makes the most highly taxed pay nothing at the end of the year, as we are talking corporations. Plus there has always been different tax brackets and probably always will unless we go to some flat tax system. So why do you make such a ramp about what we already have and have had from the beginning? And I see Obama as right when it comes to these tax breaks for corporations making historic profits as the majority suffers and at the same time using these profits and investing it overseas, such as in CHina putting those people to wok instead of people here in the US where they are making all their record breaking profits..

This is an argument that will never end because too many look at this issue from all different sides and come to different conclusion as final result. I am for helping companies and businesses here that create jobs here, not for those moving employment to another country making billions as they ship their items back to us that are sitting home unemployed because foreign hands are making the items we need instead of our own people going to work every morning producing the goods we use.

The rich getting richer and the poor getting poor. A larger divide between rich and poor. .Time to get some balance back within our society .