obama or McCain

[kluge]

<p>The biggest free luncher is the guy who bellies up to the table, chows down on lobster and caviar, and throws a $5 bill on the table as he walks out the door, complaining about having to pay so much. Taking advantage of the system to me is accepting all of the advantages of being a part of a technologically advanced nation with an infrastructure and regulatory agencies that make staying rich easier than it’s ever been, and whining about paying as much of your income in taxes as your parents did. </p>

<p>Who gets the most out of being born in America? Richie Rich or Joe Sixpack? Who complains the most about paying for dinner? The guys Richie’s PR people have conned into thinking that asking Richie to pay caviar prices for caviar benefits is outrageous.</p>

[RatedPG]

<p>“Who gets the most out of being born in America? Richie Rich or Joe Sixpack? Who complains the most about paying for dinner? The guys Richie’s PR people have conned into thinking that asking Richie to pay caviar prices for caviar benefits is outrageous.”</p>

<p>I really don’t follow this at all Kluge.</p>

[mathmom]

<p>Goodness the immigrants I know work 16 hour days for a better life for their kids. I’m not seeing freeloaders at all.</p>

[Hindoo]

<p>Our welfare system is far from perfect. … Illegals have flocked here because they have a better chance of making something resembling a living than they do back home, where multi-national corporations move in and pay them what? A dollar an hour? Five dollars a day? But who cares? While some might come here to try to attach themselves to our lucrative welfare state, I think most come looking for work. Call me naive. Maybe you’re right. People are just bad by nature.</p>

[kluge]

<p>RatedPG - you need to look at the source data and face reality. The “guest workers” mostly enrich the employers who hire them. Government expenditures are level at about 20% of GDP. Tax revenues have shrunk into the teens. Simple math. It may make you feel better to blame the poor, economically insignificant guy mowing lawns, but in fact, cutting taxes on the wealthy to historically low levels has caused the growth of the deficit. Everything else is window dressing.</p>

<p>You don’t follow it? Then think about it. It’s a pretty simple concept. I’m an affluent professional American - educated in state funded schools, researching on the internet, etc. America has made it pretty easy for me to make a good living. And I didn’t inherit anything. Anyone who’s the heir of anyone who was even a little wealthy pretty much can’t succeed in failing in America - not due to effort - it’s just the way the country is now run. Everyone in America benefits from our governmentally produced infrastructure and services - and those who have the most, benefit the most. It’s as simple as that.</p>

<p>The big con - the claim that the only people who get any benefit from government action are the people getting food stamps - has been well sold.</p>

[mapesy]

<p>

Even more alarming is that while Obama wants to spend more, he wants to shrink the percentage of the population who pay taxes.</p>

<p>Consequently, he will have to further increase the amount of taxes that that smaller group pays. (Guess that’s where he got the idea to double the Capital Gains tax).</p>

<p>These are not sound economic policies for the U.S. Even McCain knows that! haha!

</p>

<p>The director of the non-partisan research group Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) called McCain’s economic plan “one of the most fiscally irresponsible plans we’ve seen by a presidential candidate in a long time.”</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>

The director of the non-partisan research group Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) called McCain’s economic plan “one of the most fiscally irresponsible plans we’ve seen by a presidential candidate in a long time.”

</p>

<p>Must be similar to Obama’s energy “plan”.</p>

<p>As I said before, spending is the #1 thing I care about.</p>

[TerpDad]

<p>Our forefathers only promised us a land for opportunity. The harder you work the more your rewarded. If you can’t make it here you can’t make it anywhere. No one believes we shouldn’t help those less fortunate the elderly, the physically or mentally handicapped. When those in society demand health care or free college education or housing or childcare or whatever. It’s not the job of government to provide these services. Even if all these services were provided it would never be enough to satisfy the left. I am not a victim. I don’t blame the rich or the government or my neighbor for my successes or failures in my life because I know the only thing my country promised me “Pursuit of Happiness”</p>

[bz2010]

<p>mapesy - this is the mission statement of the “bi-partisan” agency you quoted:</p>

<p>

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is one of the nation’s premier policy organizations working at the federal and state levels on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals.</p>

<p>The Center conducts research and analysis to inform public debates over proposed budget and tax policies and to help ensure that the needs of low-income families and individuals are considered in these debates. We also develop policy options to alleviate poverty.</p>

<p>In addition, the Center examines the short- and long-term impacts that proposed policies would have on the health of the economy and on the soundness of federal and state budgets. Among the issues we explore are whether federal and state governments are fiscally sound and have sufficient revenue to address critical priorities, both for low-income populations and for the nation as a whole.</p>

<p>Over the past two decades, the Center has gained a reputation for producing materials that are balanced, authoritative, accessible to non-specialists, and responsive to issues currently before the country. Our materials are used by policymakers and non-profit organizations across the political spectrum, as well as by journalists from a variety of media outlets.

</p>

<p>Sounds like they are particularly concerned about the needs of low & moderate income families. Could it be that they claim McCain’s economic plan is “irresponsible” because he doesn’t increase taxes disporportionately for higher income families in order to pay for an increase in spending to benefit low-income families?</p>

<p>Here are a couple of articles that are a little more straightforward:</p>

<p>[cbs11tv.com</a> - Republican John McCain, Democrat Barack Obama Tax Plans Differ Greatly](<a href=“http://cbs11tv.com/business/obama.mccain.taxes.2.750548.html]cbs11tv.com”>http://cbs11tv.com/business/obama.mccain.taxes.2.750548.html)</p>

<p>[Deal</a> Journal - WSJ.com : Obama vs. McCain: Who Has the Better Economic Plan?](<a href=“http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2008/05/30/obama-vs-mccain-who-has-the-better-economic-plan/]Deal”>http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2008/05/30/obama-vs-mccain-who-has-the-better-economic-plan/)</p>

<p>This is the foundation for an upcoming panel discussion at The Cato Institure:

After an extended primary season, the 2008 presidential campaign is finally under way and the candidates are presenting—at least in some areas—starkly different economic policy proposals. Sen. John McCain is a career-long free trader, consistently voting against trade barriers and subsidies. Sen. Barack Obama, although possessing a shorter voting record, puts greater restrictions on his support for free trade and favors a time-out on new trade agreements and extensive review—and possible renegotiation—of existing ones. On fiscal policy, Sen. McCain wants lower taxes while Sen. Obama proposes to shift the tax burden to wealthier Americans. According to the National Taxpayers Union, Sen. McCain has endorsed $68 billion of additional government spending per year and Sen. Obama has called for nearly $344 billion of bigger government.

</p>

<p>And FYI - Here’s a link to see who pays what in taxes in America:</p>

<p>[Who</a> Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What](<a href=“Page Not Found - Search - National Taxpayers Union”>Page Not Found - Search - National Taxpayers Union)</p>

[milkandsugar]

<p>First off, I totally get what kluge is saying. I work in a ER where many of these “guest workers” come to get treatment for whatever. They have no insurance, but guess what, if anyone needs anything, who do you think is paying for them, we are. If they need surgery, they are given emergency medicaid to cover the costs, where do you think that is coming from? The employers of the workers are sweating bullets because they cannot cover the costs for these quest workers should they become injured. But the employer is the one benefitting from the low paying wage that they give them. Yes I do agree in helping our less fortunate. But why is that my own health insurance doesn’t cover the things I need.My out of pocket expenses are astronomical. I have a family, I work fulltime. Ive paid into our Social security system for 30 yrs. My parents also the same cannot get the things they need. My neighbors are from another county. They speak no english, they have multiple families in the one family house. Our school systems are overburdened with getting these people services. None of the women work, children running everywhere children having babies. I’ve seen many people take advantage of the system and quite frankly there is no justice. I see many families, elderly who struggle to make ends meet. And they ask for nothing. They just grit their teeth and tough things out.
Many of these illegals know just how to work the system. They have many resources out there to help them maximize on what they can get. I’ve seen it, people I work with who are from another country, tell me so and even have given me the names of people that specialize in helping illegals get everything.</p>

[mapesy]

<p>The CBPP quote refers the fact that McCain’s economic plan would shrink federal revenues by 25 percent over 10 years, according the Tax Policy Institute. McCain wants defense spending to remain strong (the Senate estimates that just the Iraq War is costing the US $400 million a day) and he’s articulated a health care plan that would require huge subsidies to provide coverage to the poor and those with pre-existing conditions. So far, McCain has spoken of only small government spending cuts, with most of it in earmarks.</p>

<p>So how would McCain make up the budgetary shortfall created by the massive decrease in federal revenues? If healthcare and defense spending remain strong under his plan (as he has proposed), then the only alternative is to cut entitlements. Great, you’ll probably say. Unfortunately, the only entitlement programs that are large enough to make any difference are Social Security and Medicare. I’m all for an overhaul of SS and Medicare, but is it realistic to believe it can be accomplished in the next few years? </p>

<p>The Iraq War spending bothers me a great deal. In order to finance the war, the US sold billions of T-bonds to overseas investors. (And since McCain wants to stay in Iraq, I’m afraid he’ll have to continue the policy of having overseas investors finance our war.) Do you realize what a precarious position the US is in because of this policy? Not only is it a threat to our national security, but the interest on the bonds is also a huge burden for our children going forward. </p>

<p>I took a look at your links. Just curious about your point of posting the link about who pays income taxes? The top 1% of households in this country own a disproportionately large share of the wealth, thanks in large part to Republican economic policies. My own family has been a huge beneficiary of these policies. It would cause us very little pain to pay more taxes.</p>

<p>As far as I can tell, what it boils down to is this: Do you support McCain’s economic proposals, which favor the wealthy, or do you support Obama’s policies, which are aimed at helping middle- and lower-income Americans?</p>

<p>BTW, here’s a chart showing how McCain’s and Obama’s policies would affect your tax bill:</p>

<p>[How</a> McCain and Obama will change your tax bill - Jun. 11, 2008](<a href=“How McCain and Obama will change your tax bill - Jun. 11, 2008”>How McCain and Obama will change your tax bill - Jun. 11, 2008)</p>

[kluge]

<p>

As I said before, spending is the #1 thing I care about.

Fine, Mr. Payne. Then educate yourself on who actually spends the most. The numbers from 1948 to present are in the 2008 budget report at page 318: <a href=“http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf[/url]”>http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf&lt;/a&gt; If you expect to see a surge of spending under Democratic administrations you’ll be disappointed. The Republicans are the big spenders.</p>

<p>Or believe the propaganda instead, if you prefer. It’s your choice.</p>

[tega]

<p>This might help</p>

<p>[Obama’s</a> Social Security Fine Print - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121435112024101581.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries]Obama’s”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121435112024101581.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries)</p>

<p>If you still have not made up your mind on whether to vote for McCain or Obama, please read their economic policies before you make your decision.</p>

<p>The Wall Street Journal gives a very detailed overview of most their economic policies in their opinion section.</p>

[bz2010]

<p>milkandsugar - you must be one of my neighbors - haha!</p>

<p>Same thing going on here - in a big way. Our school supt. has estimated that we have in the neighborhood of 25-30% of students who are “undocumented”. Many do not speak English which burdens the system greatly and brings our test scores way down.</p>

<p>I give McCain credit for trying to take a step in the right direction and address the problem of immigration. Many people didn’t like CIR, but it was better than what’s being done now, which is NOTHING. At least it would’ve included measures to to identify who & where these immigrants are & then maybe we could’ve gotten some help to deal with the problems that are occurring. Right now our county is just on its own and we’ve got a huge immigrant population - it’s depleting every resource we have b/c funding does not exist for the impact it creates (i.e. police, ER, schools, etc.).</p>

[tega]

<p>For those without a subscription to the WSJ, </p>

<p>

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Mr. Obama’s new tax would siphon off 0.4% of gross domestic product annually. Combined with Mr. Obama’s other tax-hike initiatives, “the total tax on labor would be close to 60 percent. In high-tax states like California and New York, the top rate would be even higher.”

</p>

<p>

Would it help Social Security’s financing problems? Mr. Obama has no idea. One of his senior economic advisers admitted to me that no one on the campaign has run any detailed models or performed any rigorous analysis. When one proposes an enormous tax increase, shouldn’t there at least be a spreadsheet somewhere?

</p>

<p>

Worst of all, even the small contribution to Social Security solvency that Mr. Obama’s plan might make is entirely illusory. In fact, the more taxes his plan collects, the worse Social Security’s long-term situation gets. That’s because all plans based on collecting taxes and saving them in the Social Security Trust Fund for future benefit payments rely on the U.S. government being able to redeem the Treasury bonds that trust fund holds.

</p>

<p>

There’s only one place that the money to redeem those bonds can come from: taxes. So ironically, any tax dollars collected today will have to be collected all over again – plus interest. You like the idea of paying more taxes today for Mr. Obama’s Social Security plan? Then just wait 20 years or so, because you’ll get to pay more taxes all over again.

</p>

[RatedPG]

<p>“First off, I totally get what kluge is saying”</p>

<p>Milkandsugar, I don’t see how your post in any way agrees with Kluge who says that “guest workers mostly enrich the employers who hire them”…</p>

[RatedPG]

<p>Oh and by the way milkandsugar, I totally get what you are saying in your post. :)</p>

[mapesy]

<p>I wouldn’t exactly call the WSJ a non-partisan publication.</p>

<p>Here’s John McCain’s social security plan (from his website):</p>

<p>

John McCain Will Reform Social Security. He will fight to save the future of Social Security while meeting our obligations to the retirees of today and the future without raising taxes. John McCain supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts – but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept. He will reach across the aisle, but if the Democrats do not act, he will. John McCain will not leave office without fixing the problems that threatens our future prosperity.

</p>

<p>A little vague, wouldn’t you say? </p>

<p>Honestly, I can’t figure out where McCain stands on the Social Security issue. In 2004, McCain spoke out in favor of privatization. Recently, he said he’s against privatization. In 2005, Tim Russert asked McCain if he would support “as part of the solution to Social Security’s solvency problem, that you lift the cap so that you would pay payroll tax, Social Security tax, not just on the first $90,000 of your income, but perhaps even higher?” McCain’s answer: As part of a compromise, I could, and other sacrifices, because we all know that it doesn’t add up until we make some very serious and fundamental changes.” Recently, McCain blasted Obama for proposing that exact solution.</p>

<p>In reality, I don’t think anyone believes raising the social security income cap is a long-term solution, but then neither is privatization. The permanent solution will probably involve benefit cuts and higher taxes–but no one wants to hear that.</p>

[unregistered]

<p>RatedPG, milkandsugar also stated “But the employer is the one benefitting from the low paying wage that they give them.”</p>

[cartera45]

<p>tega - as far as I’m concerned, relying on the WSJ for unbiased opinions is akin to relying on Fox News. Donald Luskin, who wrote that article and also writes for the National Review is far from objective. I’ll listen to Luskin if you’ll listen to Al Franken.</p>