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?

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 !

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.

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?

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.

"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 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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

"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.

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.

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

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

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

Originally Posted by billethkid

...
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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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 #*%@.