Ok, this is getting comical. Obama..

what the fake conservative republicans don't tell you is they will lower taxes but balloon deficits causing an inflation tax that hurts the poor the hardest.

Reagan pulled off this scam perfectly.

 

Say we have two politicians running for President, Obama and McBush.

Both have not made their priority agenda for a balanced budget. I haven't really heard either one speak too much about fiscal responsibility.

Obama the democrat will want to spend money for education, the economy, etc. and less for military.

McBush wants to stay the Bush course.

So, which is better?

To have someone like McBush who will spend like Bush and not raise taxes or increase revenue, or someone like Obama who will spend like Bush yet raise taxes on the upper crust to help pay for the spending?

 

Both have not made their priority agenda for a balanced budget. I haven't really heard either one speak too much about fiscal responsibility.
---------------------

I haven't heard that line "fiscal responsibility" anywhere at any level of govt in recent years. If any good comes out of high oil prices, it may be a few cutbacks in gov't spending. The politicians are squeeling like stuck pigs lately.

 

McCain is not credible on the budget? Come on, get real. I don't like McCain, but I will grant the man the fact that few in the congress have spoken out more forcefully against wasteful government spending. He is just 180 degrees from Bush on this issue. He has been against earmarks , farm subsidies,etc. His position has won him few friends in the republican caucus, and on this issue at least they would have been far better off to listen to him.

 

Exactly, its funny how people get elected on PERCEPTION, not facts.

Its nuts, politics really are one big marketing gimmick.

Life goes on......

 

If you want to post what he does, not what lip service he gives, fine.

His voting record to stop spending, support for balanced budget actions, etc. tell the story.

McBush is a spender, not a saver. He will try to increase spending on the military and cut education, but the net result is a very big budget deficit.

It is more responsible if someone is president to raise revenue through taxation of the wealthy if they are going to keep spending the way Bush has been spending.

I repeat, neither of these guys is going to talk much or do much during the campaign about cutting spending, reducing the size of government, stopping government waste, etc. This foolish notion that cutting taxes helps the economy without reducing spending...well look at us now after the years of spending by Bush and cutting taxes. Look at the value of the dollar, the budget deficit, etc. The rich have gotten richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class poorer.

You think the negativity toward Bush and McBush is about the war in Iraq?

It is about the economy stupid...

 

June 13, 2008
Check Point
Will the Real Tax-and-Spender Please ’Fess Up?
By LARRY ROHTER

With the general election in full gear, Senator John McCain has stepped up efforts to paint his rival, Senator Barack Obama, as what he calls a traditional Democratic tax-and-spend liberal. On Tuesday, for instance, Mr. McCain, addressing a business gathering, accused Mr. Obama of wanting to enact “the largest single tax increase since World War II.”

Mr. McCain, the expected Republican nominee, also said that “under Senator Obama’s tax plan, Americans of every background would see their taxes rise — seniors, parents, small-business owners and just about everyone who has even a modest investment in the market.” He used much the same language in an April 15 speech in which he warned that Democrats “are going to raise your taxes by thousands of dollars per year,” adding up to “a trillion dollars in new taxes over the next decade.”

Economists of various ideological persuasions, however, view Mr. McCain’s assessment as inaccurate or exaggerated. Some question whether Mr. Obama’s tax plan can even be characterized as an increase. Some also argue that contrary to Mr. McCain’s assertions, the Democrat’s proposals, if enacted, would actually reduce taxes for the middle class — the voters both candidates see as the key to victory.

In a study of the candidates’ plans made public Wednesday, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concluded that in contrast to Mr. McCain, “Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers.”

The study said, “The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution,” whereas “Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes.”

Other groups that focus on tax and economic policy are preparing similar analyses, but say they regard the Tax Policy Center’s assessment as highly reliable, based on its work in the past.

The study did question some of Mr. Obama’s calculations, noting, for example, that “both candidates may be overoptimistic in their revenue targets for closing tax loopholes, Obama probably more than McCain.”

According to the group’s computations, under Mr. Obama’s plan, the middle of the middle class, or those earning $37,595 to $66,354, would see taxes cut by $1,042 a year. Under Mr. McCain’s plan, taxes for people in that category would also fall, but by $319; the largest chunk of the benefits would go to those making $2.8 million a year or more.

“When you hear this talk on the TV about how Obama’s a tax-and-spend liberal and he’s going to destroy businesses, it’s just not true,” Mr. Obama said Thursday in Kaukauna, Wis. The reality, he said, is that “the typical middle-class family will get three times more from my cut than the one John McCain has proposed.”

In a conference call with reporters Thursday, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Mr. McCain’s senior economic adviser, complained about what he described as flaws in the Tax Policy Center study. He called it “an incomplete analysis” that made “some fundamentally unrealistic assumptions” about Mr. Obama’s plan, specifically in the area of taxes on small businesses, and accepted spending projections for the Democrat “that also don’t add up.”

There is “a real difference here” between Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama, Mr. Holtz-Eakin added. “The Tax Policy Center didn’t capture that,” he said.

Part of the disagreement between the candidates has to do with the semantics of what constitutes a tax increase. When Congress approved cuts in 2001 and 2003, it did so with the understanding that those benefits, which largely favor the wealthy, would expire at the end of 2010. While Mr. McCain wants to extend virtually all of the cuts permanently, Mr. Obama favors retaining those that primarily benefit people whose income is less than $250,000 a year.

“The way the Congressional Budget Office scores it, that would not be a tax increase, because their baseline assumes the increase is going to happen as part of current law,” said Chris Edwards, a tax analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Bush and the Republicans would have liked the cuts to be permanent, but you need 60 votes in the Senate to make cuts permanent.”

Mr. McCain is correct when he says that Mr. Obama intends to increase the maximum tax rate on capital gains, the bulk of which fall on the wealthiest segment of the population, and that he would be less generous in offering breaks on the estate tax. But he tends to play down or ignore Mr. Obama’s proposals to eliminate taxes for retirees earning less than $50,000 a year and to give tax breaks to workers earning less than $75,000 annually.

“McCain is picking the areas where rates go up and ignoring the areas where Obama is trying to rebalance the tax code so that taxpayers would save,” said John Irons, research and policy director at the Economic Policy Institute, which is generally viewed as sympathetic to working families. Mr. Irons said that “the important thing is to look at overall impact on people” and that on this score, “the vast majority of the population, almost the entirety of the middle class, would see more from Obama than McCain.”

Economists have also criticized the methodology behind Mr. McCain’s assertion that Americans from all kinds of backgrounds could end up paying thousands of dollars more in taxes if Mr. Obama got his way. Several criticized him as apparently basing his claim on an average figure in which, as Mr. Irons said, “Bill Gates is mixed with you and me, and everything gets skewed.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/us/politics/13check.html?pagewanted=print

 

The truth is that Obama is just another gasbag saying what he thinks will generate votes from an apathetic and uninformed electorate who think government can and should solve all of life's woes. Don't include me in the "rest of you guys" that think the Bush tax cuts are really there. The debt is a tax on future generations to be sure. On this point I give the Dem's credit for at least being honest enough to steal from the present instead of deferring to their children.

 

And a tip of the hat to Stock_trad3r for the exact quote. Good job.

 

Rat, i rarely agree with you. In this case, however, you are right on the money! Basic economics is really not all that complicated; yet it is lost completely on the average voter. Hence the continuous, condescending, lying litany from politicians of all strips, to wit: "I will not raise your taxes." Bull Shit! Sure, they won't vote to increase income tax rates, but they are pleased to deflate your money via deficit spending and monetizing the debt and are confident you won't understand what hit you. Bull Shit, i say!