Why Don't We Debate These Facts?

[Guest]

We've all heard allegations by the candidates that one or the other would or wouldn't increase or decrease taxes and/or significantly increase federal government spending and worsen the already ballooning federal deficit. In fact, a current McCain ad is entitled Painful Tax Increases and describes how Barack Obama would increase the taxes on American families.

Here's what FactCheck.org, probably the most respected and non-partisan fact-checking service has to say on what the plans of both candidates are likely to produce:

Tax Reductions

The nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates’ tax plans. When we asked if Obama’s claim that he would “cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families” was true, the spokesman for TPC told FactCheck.org that it was “consistent with our estimates.” Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children. Under Obama's plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes. The average household income in the U.S. was a little more than $51,000 in 2007.

Under McCain's plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.

Increased Government Spending

The recent McCain TV ad also claims that Obama and congressional Democrats would bring about "years of deficits." The TPC analysis shows that both candidates' economic plans would fail to bring an end to deficit spending. In fact, by that measure McCain's plans are worse than Obama's. According to the TPC analysis, Obama's tax plan would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018, an increase of about 35%. McCain's plan would bring about a projected 50% increase in the national debt by 50%, a $5 trillion increase in the same time frame.

The TPC also found that neither candidate’s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases. Neither the McCain or Obama campaigns have specified any such spending cuts or tax increases.

In response to Senator McCain's statement that he would balance the federal budget by 2013, Robert L. Bixby of the Concord Coalition, another non-partisan group which concentrates on fiscal issues, said, "It’s feasible to balance the budget by 2013, but very unlikely under the policies Senator McCain has proposed. His proposed spending cuts are far too vague to be counted on for significant savings and, even if they were more specific, I can’t see how they would come close to offsetting the level of tax cuts he recommends.

The Washington Post's editorial board also differed with McCain's claims regarding his tax and spending plans. The board concluded, in its July 14 editorial, that the McCain plan was "not credible."


I'm disappointed that neither candidate for the presidency seems to think that the massive national debt that has been created within the past decade is an important enough problem to seriously address. It's one of the most important issues as far as I'm concerned, but clearly would require the announcement of some very unpopular plans by the candidates. It looks like neither is choosing to accept the political risk associated with telling the truth about how we can or will reduce the national debt. Like our own household budgets it can only be done in one of two ways--increase revenues or decrease spending.

Comments anyone?

[Guest]

KAHUNA...while I respect someone AGAIN trying to get a discussion of issues, there are two things only that I can offer...

First, when it comes to economic issues, I must take a back seat because it is not an issue I can discuss with any authority or confidence.

Secondly, it is obvious that your intent was to tout Sen Obama with this post...you didnt disguise it very well :) This is not as simple as you make it in my opinion.....I have always felt that we should use our free enterprise system to stimulate the economy and not complicate the tax code any more than we already have. I will just add that you are not taking into consideration any of the many promises being made that will cost oodles of money.

Relative to government spending, there was some report today on earmark spending that on the surface was not favorable to Sen Obama at all, but will leave that to you experts to discuss !

[Guest]

The italicized information that I included in my post, Bucco, was copied and pasted from authoritative sources. If it sounded like it was pro-Obama, it may have been because it's been Senator McCain that's been alleging the dire results from an Obama presidency. To my knowledge, there have been few if any similar accusations by Obama against McCain. So when non-partisan analysts confirm Obama's claims and de-bunk those made by McCain, it may be because the claims and ads of one candidate are less truthful than those put forth by the other.

As far as me not considering the "many promises being made that will cost oodles of money"--the results of the analyses I presented were not mine, as I said. The analyses included all the plans in both candidate's campaign platforms. So I think the conclusions do reflect as complete a result as is possible given the information provided by the candidates.

I'm not going to deny that I will likely vote for Barack Obama. But I have said on numerous occasions here that I would not be terribly unhappy regardless of who is elected. To be honest, I posted this information because I was so surprised by the findings. They are not consistent with what I might have expected. And I thought that might be true for the rest of the readers of this forum, as well.

[Guest]

This forum contains threads which "report" on all sorts of rumors and mis-interpretations of statements by the candidates. There are too many threads started that are simply one member railing and ranting against other members who may be supporting the other candidate. Some draw flurries of angry and strident back-and-forth responses from the partisans of both candidates here in TOTV. But with this thread, I tried to present a real issue--one that will almost certainly impact on our pocketbooks, regardless of which candidate is elected. The result...nothing, nada, zippo...hardly any discussion at all. Does that mean no interest?

C'mon folks, let's discuss the issues...not what the campaign committees present in their efforts to win the daily 24-hour news cycle. They'll keep doing that as long as they can distract all of us from asking some questions about the important issues facing the country. And it's been proven that a lot of what is being said by the campaign committees on both sides is either plainly incorrect or an aggressive parsing of words and facts to distort the truth.

Why are so many of us willing to be complicit in these distractions? Can't we see that the candidates "people" will say and advertise just about anything--true or false--just to get their man elected?

Again...comments anyone?

[Guest]

Those may be Opinions from 5 different people, but they are far from "Facts"

From their very own website.

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans
Author(s): Leonard E. Burman, Surachai Khitatrakun, Greg Leiserson, Jeff Rohaly, Eric Toder, Roberton Williams


So it may be the view of these 5 people. ???

Last but not least does it really mattter at this stage? Either candidate is going to most likely say things that will help to get them into office. Pandering to the public. It is what they actually DO WHEN IN OFFICE that is important. What will they do while in office? The only thing we can do to try to figure that out is to look into their past, their history, their experience in such matters and that simply isn't possible with Barrack Obama.

[Guest]

"Either candidate is going to most likely say things that will help to get them into office. Pandering to the public."

What a sad commentary on this thing we call a democracy. We throw our support to one candidate or the other, not really understanding all the issues, and knowing and accepting that they simply lie to us in order to get elected to office. Then once there, they serve themselves first and do what they want, regardless of what they promised while campaigning. And we accept it and even continue to defend them.

What a system. What a shame.

[Guest]

I do not think it is the system...not the candidates...it is US !!!!!! We, in my opinion, have become a bunch of lazy folks who dont want to work at anything. We make our decision on who to vote for, if we get our lazy butts out to vote, based on spin on what we consider our favorite news network.

We care more about who Ophrah supports than we do about policy..we just flat dont care..oh,we say we do..that is easy but we make no effort to learn about candidates in ALL elections, not just Presidential or what they stand for.

It is easier to just snipe at those we figure in some fashion is the enemy, and we get mad at the politicians but they realized a long time ago how lazy we are. Some over the years say..no negative campaigning but they find a way and we respond to it.

If this sounds negative I am sorry, but I just think we are a nation of enablers....someone once said that we get the leaders we deserve and it fits ! I posted a few days ago some statistics just from this board.....how many threads on slamming someone...how many about issues.....it was not even close, and to make my point...those who kept saying lets talk about issues NEVER EVEN POSTED IN THOSE THREADS ABOUT ISSUES.

[Guest]

"Either candidate is going to most likely say things that will help to get them into office. Pandering to the public."

What a sad commentary on this thing we call a democracy. We throw our support to one candidate or the other, not really understanding all the issues, and knowing and accepting that they simply lie to us in order to get elected to office. Then once there, they serve themselves first and do what they want, regardless of what they promised while campaigning. And we accept it and even continue to defend them.

What a system. What a shame.

I don't disagree, but it is the way it is. Every single election we hear.
Change!
I'm going to fix the Health care crisis!
Were going to put Social Security in a lock box!
I'm here to help the working American!
Let's put America first!
............ Please fill in any others that you can think of here.

On one hand, it's all BS, say what's needed to get elected. On the other hand, if politicians actually said what they really felt, no one would ever get elected. You can't be in the public eye in this country without what you say being on the front cover of every website/newspaper/blog. People want to belive that every single politician they vote for isn't a bigot, a racist, actually cares about helping the people that elected them, etc, etc, etc. In real life, some of them are racist's, bigot's, etc. but if any of them gave any indication of that, they would not be elected. So lying and pandering to the public are needed to get votes.

On one hand, as I said, it's BS. On the other hand, the system does seem to work pretty well as we do have the greatest nation on Earth.

[Guest]

A few weeks ago on C-Span, there was a live focus group discussion. One topic that came up was the alleged upcoming financial shortfall for Social Security. The panel was pretty much unanimous that they wanted Social Security fixed. But when asked whether they wanted to see increased taxes to pay for Social Security, or decreased benefits, they answered neither. This is quite consistent with other more comprehensive surveys.

I think our elected leaders give us pretty much what we want in regards to Social Security. We know its has serious problems, but we don't want to address it. I think our fiscal situation works pretty much the same way. We want things, but prefer others to pay for it, or hope it simply goes away.

As to this particular topic, all I offer is that 1) any economic plan still has to be approved by the Congress, and 2) If you want to know what sort of tax changes may be forthcoming, you best ask Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means committee. That is where all tax bills originate and nothing will happen that Representative Rangel doesn't sign off on. Rangel certainly wants the wealthy to pay more in taxes. Finally, the fact that both candidates plans support some tax cuts and spending increases in a time of rising deficits, I find myself unable to feel a great deal of enthusiasm towards either.

And lest someone remind me that we need some form of National Health Care or a new comprehensive energy policy, my answer is, you are probably correct. Now how do we pay for it.

Hey, I got a great idea. Lets go back to talking about Sarah Palin.

[Guest]

Didn't take much time to decide to bail out the banks at 200-400 billion.
So why does it take an "sct of congress" :joke: for the priority needs thaat have been on the docket.....FOR YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTK

[Guest]

I honestly dont want to get partisan here but in discussing SS, didn't the administration want to discuss the problem a few years ago and discuss options other than theirs and congress said there was no problem ????

Sincere question

[Guest]

It isn't partisan at all. Both parties have had their turn in the White House and controlling congress. It matters little who is in office. Remember they are non representative representatives. If the issue does not have something in it for them why wouldtjey bother? As accomplish testifies....they don't!!!!!!!!!!!

Until a major enema like flush is executed in the ranks of the encumbents....until there are term limits.....there will be no change.

BTK

[Guest]

...
Until a major enema like flush is executed in the ranks of the encumbents....until there are term limits.....there will be no change.

BTK

There should not be a need for "term limits," even for the Presidency. Voters get what they want, and always can vote for the new kid on the block.

If you REALLY want folk to get-in-then-get-out of Washington, what will do that is the elimination of the Congressional and Presidential Pensions. That would make the role of "elected offical" back to what the Founding Fathers had in mind - citizens who get involved in government, and then go home and let someone else take over the reins. The "pension" aspect is what has created "professional politicians."

The candidate(s) who say, "I want to end the Congressional and Presidential pensions," no matter what party (if any) they espouse, get my vote without question.

[Guest]

Again...comments anyone?




Kahuna! I am sure many of us have comments to share...however MANY of us had decided for ourselves to take the day off from the political forum(in our opinions we did this out of respect for the day 9-11). Perhaps why you didn't get many comments. I apologize in advance if this posting makes you feel that I am calling you unamerican or disrespectful. I am not intentionally doing that. Some of us just made that decision for ourselves and asked others to join along. Everyone has the right to do whatever he or she wants to do....again I hope that I did not offend you in any way nor do I sound too arrogant.

Perhaps later I will go back and read the things you wrote about and add my comments. thanks
Cass

[Guest]

This forum contains threads which "report" on all sorts of rumors and mis-interpretations of statements by the candidates. There are too many threads started that are simply one member railing and ranting against other members who may be supporting the other candidate. Some draw flurries of angry and strident back-and-forth responses from the partisans of both candidates here in TOTV. But with this thread, I tried to present a real issue--one that will almost certainly impact on our pocketbooks, regardless of which candidate is elected. The result...nothing, nada, zippo...hardly any discussion at all. Does that mean no interest?

C'mon folks, let's discuss the issues...not what the campaign committees present in their efforts to win the daily 24-hour news cycle. They'll keep doing that as long as they can distract all of us from asking some questions about the important issues facing the country. And it's been proven that a lot of what is being said by the campaign committees on both sides is either plainly incorrect or an aggressive parsing of words and facts to distort the truth.

Why are so many of us willing to be complicit in these distractions? Can't we see that the candidates "people" will say and advertise just about anything--true or false--just to get their man elected?

Again...comments anyone?

Agree completely.

There have been several attempts (a couple have actually been somewhat successsful) to initiate discussion on specific issues. Unfortunately, the most common threads delve into insults, tittilating prying and patter about internal family matters (as if we're all so perfect!) and "National Inquirer" type gossip-mongering.

The very nature of those insults-and-gossip threads indicate to me that perhaps we have in our Congress (for 20-30-40 years at a time) and historically in the Executive Branch exactly what "we" want - a temporary "royal family" which can be followed, photo'd and sound-bit similar to what the monarchies of the world accept each day.

If "we" want pseudo rock stars, celebrities, and folk heroes who speak well good, look good and smile a lot to be our "leaders of government," then it IS a waste of time to discuss issues. Why would a candidate want to present a detailed and substantive dissertation on problems-and-solutions (e.g., issues) when joking with David Letterman or Jay Leno, or being on the cover of Rolling Stone gets more attention and exposure - and public acceptance and adoration.

We do not have to agree on the solutions, but we have no chance in understanding the effects of the solutions finally to occur without respectful rapport among ourselves on what really are the problems, what fixes may work and why, and will the fixes lead us into paths we have already as a society walked as documented in our history.

However, if the "I sure look good, don't I?" is all you want out of the Chief Executive of the nation, don't complain when the mortgage companies go belly-up and banks fail because of poor decision-making by executives who look good in their picture within the annual repor, but can't seem to add-and-subtract worth a #*%@.

[Guest]

Presidential economics ...abridged version for people who don't like detail

Obama Plan

redistribute wealth...giant step to socialism...
bigger government...more taxes
tax the rich and business more to make up for token dole to 95%
raise capital gains tax, raise estate tax
add a national health plan and increase taxes to cover, add more bureaucracy, $$$$$
limited drilling, develope other energy sources, wind, solar, maybe nuclear

McCain

maintain Bush tax cuts
do away with inheritance taxes
reduce capital gains
cut government spending
drill, drill, drill.....develope other sources, wind, solar, nuclear
tax breaks for business to encourage growth and jobs

The problem with FactCheck and Urban-Brookings as posted, is they only give you what you ask for to confirm or deny a candidate's talking point. What is conspicuously absent, by omission or design, is where is Obama going to get the money to fund his grand promises. If the response was totally honest, it would have included the significant tax increases on the wealthy, corporations and businesses that he intends to impose to make up for the cuts.

The IRS reports that, "The Internal Revenue Service has released data on tax year 2003 that show the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent of the whole, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top quarter of taxpayers paid 83.9 percent."

Kahuna, what reactions will the above group, already paying the highest tax rates, pursue if their taxes are greatly increased? Would the wealthy reduce their expenses, lay off help, sell off and stop buying real estate, cars, etc. ? Would big business reduce their work forces, pass on to the public their increases in higher prices for goods and commodities with the net result of taking more money out of the pockets of the masses, negating the alleged tax relief, and forcing them to cut their own expenses thereby driving the working man's cost of goods and the economy down further?

The growth of government under Obama's plan is frightening. Health care alone will require a monumental bureaucracy and concurrent regulations and regulators. When is the last time government has run anything efficiently? In New Jersey, Governor Corzine,
a liberal democrat and Obama supporter, pushed a rebate check to the masses. Great political tool for votes. Why didn't he just reduce our taxes by the amount of the rebate check and save the millions it cost to administer the program? Multiply that by Obama's big government ideas and prospects are frightening. If you want to see the future under the Obama plan, look at Corzine's New Jersey, the most highly taxed state in the union with businesses and taxpayers fleeing the state.

McCain's plan is the lesser of two evils in my opinion. The last I heard, the Democratic controlled Congress had a 9% approval rating. Gee, I wonder who that 9% is. I've heard the 1 out 10 people in America is on the government payroll. Hmmmm. Factor in relatives of Congress and ...........fill in the blanks.

[Guest]

Cabo:

Good post. I agree the lesser of two evils .

[Guest]

The lesser of 2 evils is always best...............
here is what i see, to steal a phrase... Correct me if I am WRONG !!!
1. It dont matter which candidate wins, you will always have taxes go up. Unless we have another Tea Party in the famouse place.....
2. You cant argue that Obama doesnt have the experience to run the country, when in deed Mccain's health is not the best, if he goes we got Gov. of ALaska running the show. Now there is the Pot calling the Kettle black.
3. McCain wasnt for change untill someone in the Rep Party woke up and seen that Obama and Hillary had everyones attention!!!
4. Obama really doesnt have a proven track record to run a country, but then again Mccain has been around for ever, but the country still runs the same since i was knee high to a grasshopper..
5. WHEN ARE WE GOING TO HOLD PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR PROMISES.
6. I agree with the Enough is Enough speech. Stop the slander and bickering like tots arguing over he said she said stuff. Get down to busniess. i would hope that someone would make the problems with drugs in the schools and our society as important as who said who was the pig with lipstick on???????????????????????
Thanks for your time..

[Guest]

The lesser of 2 evils is always best...............
here is what i see, to steal a phrase... Correct me if I am WRONG !!!
1. It dont matter which candidate wins, you will always have taxes go up. Unless we have another Tea Party in the famouse place.....
2. You cant argue that Obama doesnt have the experience to run the country, when in deed Mccain's health is not the best, if he goes we got Gov. of ALaska running the show. Now there is the Pot calling the Kettle black.
3. McCain wasnt for change untill someone in the Rep Party woke up and seen that Obama and Hillary had everyones attention!!!
4. Obama really doesnt have a proven track record to run a country, but then again Mccain has been around for ever, but the country still runs the same since i was knee high to a grasshopper..
5. WHEN ARE WE GOING TO HOLD PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR PROMISES.
6. I agree with the Enough is Enough speech. Stop the slander and bickering like tots arguing over he said she said stuff. Get down to busniess. i would hope that someone would make the problems with drugs in the schools and our society as important as who said who was the pig with lipstick on???????????????????????
Thanks for your time..

1. Agree.
2. On any given day, our Maker can call any of us, regardless of age or thought that we are bulletproof. If a Pres. Obama could no longer serve, the next is Sen. Biden, who can be described as a more liberal version of Sen. McCain (both with 25-35 years as Senators). If a Pres. McCain could no longer serve, the next is Gov. Palin, who can be described as a conservative version of Sen. Obama (3-year age difference, arguments about 'experiece" cut both ways). So, either way it's weird.
3. Every candidate the last 150 years (except Pres. Lincoln in 1864 and Pres. Roosevelt in 1944) has campaigned waving the Change banner to include the incumbents. The fact is that there is little they can change because existing laws (especially 'entitlements') are there because somebody lobbied for them and still controls campaign contributions. So, the promise of change keeps coming around, but despite all the candidates who have campaigned as being the change agent of the future, how often has any substantive change of any kind ever happened? It's the golden election promise which always turns into tin - and"we" keep falling for it.
4. See #3 above.
5. Probably as soon as we hold Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate responsible for fulfilling their campaign promises. Yet, most of those folk spend more time in office than union bosses - and held to lower standards.
6. Agree.
Thanks!

[Guest]

I get so confused! Why do the Republicans keep saying that Obama is going to raise taxes! IT'S JUST NOT TRUE! He said he will raise taxes on people making over $250,000 a year. Gosh, all you Republicans must be in that bracket to be bellyaching and lying about it all the time. Geesh, at least listen to what the man is saying!

[Guest]

chels

does it confuse you that Obama will let GW"s tax cuts expire in 2010?? If I recall the number right that will mean a $ 2900.00 tax increase for middle income people.

Is there a number or a percentage that is enough or high enough for the productive people of America to pay?? Or some amount your willing to allow those hard working people to keep?? Or is a complete socialistic system what you want??

That trashy guy you want taken out of the White House has increased proceeds to the treasury 20% since those tax cuts.

OOOimsoinexperienced... Benj

[Guest]

I get so confused! Why do the Republicans keep saying that Obama is going to raise taxes! IT'S JUST NOT TRUE! He said he will raise taxes on people making over $250,000 a year.


Your words.

I think your right Obama will raise taxes.


OOOilovethedailykos.... Benj

[Guest]

Chelsea, with all due respect to your post, namecalling not withstanding, what do you think will be the consequences if Obama "just" raises the taxes on those making more than $250,000, corporations and businesses? By the way, I have listened and read everything I can get my hands on about Obama. I gave my opinion in a post above that seems to preempt the point of yours. I'd like to hear your response. Will corporations pass on tax hikes to the public? Isn't that just another form of taxation? Most businesses, big and small are 90% manpower intensive. The largest cost in doing business is payroll. When business needs to make adjustments to meet tax responsibilities, will they layoff people?

The Big Bad Oil Companies

From 2003 to 2007 Exxon Mobil's income grew by 89%. What the tax and spenders in Washington won't mention is that their taxes grew by 170%

In 2007 Exxon Mobil had profits of 40.6 billion dollars and paid 30 billion dollars in taxes.

You will hear the tax and spend crew fire the public up by noting, "In the first quarter of 2008 Exxon Mobil earned a record 10.9 billion dollars." What you won't here from them is that they paid 9.3 billion in taxes.

Exxon pays 49% tax rate on GROSS income. Factor operating costs and draw your own conclusions.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a stockholder in Exxon Mobil.

What is the breaking point of taxation for big business? Big question, I hope you give it an honest try, how much of big business's tax burden is "passed on" to the consumer and isn't that just another way Washington picks the pockets of the working class?

The most frightening factor is the integral part that the oil industry plays in national defense. Our country should be doing more to encourage oil companies to expand and do what they were intended to do....supply fuel to our nation. That expansion could also create jobs. Like other big business, oil companies are demonized by the liberals and the left. This country was founded and grew on the backs of big business, oil companies, railroads, risk takers, and hardworking people who created something. Today, Obama and the libs just want people to sit in front of their TV's and collect government checks in exchange for votes, while the government takes care of everything. It secures those big salaries and pensions in Washington. It's called socialism and it didn't work in Europe and it didn't work in the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.Perhaps your not old enough to remember when the wall came down. I'm sure Kahuna was just a child. China, Russia, and Europe are going Capitalistic and we are leaning Socialistic. Go figure.

[Guest]

CHELSEA...have you ever totalled up all he has promised including the now in congress "global Poverty act" to determine how much he wants to SPEND ?

And despite your claim, all Republicans are not liars as not all Democrats are either. You are just consumed with not liking folks unless they agree with you it seems !

[Guest]

Cabo Excellent post. I've lived in a socialist country. You are absolutely right. Many countries are finally figuring out socialism doesn't work and are changing their tune. The US seems to be going more and more towards socialism. Have we learned nothing!!! As you said, go figure.

[Guest]

Cabo Excellent post. I've lived in a socialist country. You are absolutely right. Many countries are finally figuring out socialism doesn't work and are changing their tune. The US seems to be going more and more towards socialism.
__________________________________________________ _________________-

This is the single biggest item on my personal agenda....I actually have trouble comparing the candidates stand on the major issues because I think the turn to the far left is the biggest danger !

[Guest]

Kahuna, you started this interesing thread, where are you?