McCain leadin both Hillary and Obama in National poll

[GaryC 7]

Taxation in the right areas, not the blanket, across-the-board maleficient increase the Reps are daydreaming of to come from Obama or Clinton. In the end of it all it will mean the upper 1% of the crust will earn (arbitrary number here) 98% of its profits instead of 100%. They will still continue to be the upper 1% of the crust. Not so bad now is it?

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is an across the board increase. My taxes went down after the tax cuts went into effect (and I am far from rich) and if the expire they will go back up by thousands each year.

To be saving "thousands" each year from Bush's tax cuts, you'd have to be rather rich (in or upwards of the 85th percentile of earners, i.e. making 154K-374K with an average of 217K a year). If you're making less than 75K a year, you don't even save 1K in taxes a year on Bush's cuts. I understand that you like all things Bush (with the exception of his stance on illegal immigration) but let's try and have an honest debate here.

I am being totaly honest here. If you like I can blank out my personal info and email you my tax returns. My taxes on about $80K went down almost $2000. I think you will agree that $80K for a family of 5 isn't rich.

This is the closest one that matches me from mawlsons list:

5. Married with two kids under 17, $100,000 income, $15,000 of itemized deductions

Old tax: $12,162

New tax: $9,820

Savings: $2,342

At the time I had 3 kids with a family income (my then wife and I) of about $80K. Mawlsons post isn't rep propaganda, it's reality. If the dems let the tax cuts expire it will effect everyone, not just the "rich".

Edited March 31, 2008 by GaryC

[one...two...tree 2,762]

New McCain Rips Old McCain’s Argument That Bush Tax Cuts Benefit The ‘Wealthy’

On ABC’s This Week today, host George Stephanopoulos asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) about Democratic proposals to protect “middle-income Americans” and “only raise” taxes “on the wealthy.” In response, McCain bristled at Stephanopoulos’s distinction, mockingly warning against rhetoric that talks about “who the, quote, ‘wealthy’ are in America”:

MCCAIN: But more importantly, we’ll argue about whether we should increase your taxes or decrease them. Obviously, I’m for decreases in taxes. Maybe Americans want their taxes increased. We’ll argue about…

STEPHANOPOULOS: … for middle-income Americans, only raise them on the wealthy?

MCCAIN: Oh, yes, sure, the wealthy, the wealthy. Always be interested in when people talk about who the, quote, “wealthy” are in America. I find it interesting.

Now that he has to court the hardline anti-tax factions of the conservative movement, McCain is changing his story on tax policy. In 2000, 2001, and 2003, McCain was one of the people “interested” in talking about “who the, quote, ‘wealthy’ are in America” when he argued against Bush’s tax cuts that “mostly benefit the wealthy“:

“There’s one big difference between me and the others–I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy.” [McCain campaign commercial, January 2000]

“I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.” [McCain Senate floor statement, May 21, 2001]

“But when you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that–as the previous tax cuts–that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans.” [NBC’s “Today,” Jan. 7, 2003]

McCain now appears more interested in protecting the “wealthy” than he does in straight talk.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/17/mccain-wealthy-taxes/

[GaryC 7]

New McCain Rips Old McCain’s Argument That Bush Tax Cuts Benefit The ‘Wealthy’

On ABC’s This Week today, host George Stephanopoulos asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) about Democratic proposals to protect “middle-income Americans” and “only raise” taxes “on the wealthy.” In response, McCain bristled at Stephanopoulos’s distinction, mockingly warning against rhetoric that talks about “who the, quote, ‘wealthy’ are in America”:

MCCAIN: But more importantly, we’ll argue about whether we should increase your taxes or decrease them. Obviously, I’m for decreases in taxes. Maybe Americans want their taxes increased. We’ll argue about…

STEPHANOPOULOS: … for middle-income Americans, only raise them on the wealthy?

MCCAIN: Oh, yes, sure, the wealthy, the wealthy. Always be interested in when people talk about who the, quote, “wealthy” are in America. I find it interesting.

Now that he has to court the hardline anti-tax factions of the conservative movement, McCain is changing his story on tax policy. In 2000, 2001, and 2003, McCain was one of the people “interested” in talking about “who the, quote, ‘wealthy’ are in America” when he argued against Bush’s tax cuts that “mostly benefit the wealthy“:

“There’s one big difference between me and the others–I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy.” [McCain campaign commercial, January 2000]

“I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.” [McCain Senate floor statement, May 21, 2001]

“But when you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that–as the previous tax cuts–that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans.” [NBC’s “Today,” Jan. 7, 2003]

McCain now appears more interested in protecting the “wealthy” than he does in straight talk.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/17/mccain-wealthy-taxes/

Yet another hit piece from a far left web site. Lets look at who runs this thing.

Editor:

Faiz Shakir is the Research Director at the Center for American Progress and serves as Editor of ThinkProgress.org and The Progress Report. He holds a B.A. degree in Government from Harvard University and a J.D. degree from the Georgetown Law Center. Faiz has previously worked as a Research Associate for the Democratic National Committee, as a Legislative Aide to Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, and as a communications aide in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. His writings have appeared in the Jerusalem Post, Florida Today, and Salon. Faiz has appeared on CNN, Fox News, and CNBC television, among other places, and has been a guest on many radio shows

Staff:

Amanda Terkel is Deputy Research Director at the Center for American Progress and serves as Managing Editor for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress. Amanda was formerly the Center’s Special Assistant for Strategic Planning. Her past positions have been with the Office of Senator Charles E. Schumer, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, and the Office of the Inspector General in the Office of Personnel Management. She graduated from Colgate University. Her writing has appeared in The New York Times, Politico, American Prospect Online, and InTheseTimes.com, and she regularly appears as a guest on various television and radio shows.

Satyam Khanna is a Research Associate for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Satyam holds a B.A. in Biology and Political Science from Washington University in St. Louis. Prior to joining the Center, he worked as a field organizer for Jeff Smith’s Missouri Senate campaign and a researcher for Claire McCaskill’s US Senate race, both in St. Louis. He is also an alumnus of the Washington Leadership Program of the Indian-American Center for Political Awareness. Satyam hails from Edmond, Oklahoma.

Brad Johnson is a Research Associate for The Progress Report and The Wonk Room at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Brad holds a bachelor’s degree in math and physics from Amherst College and master’s degree in geosciences from the Massachusetts Institute for Technology. He is the co-author of Technomanifestos and the founder of HillHeat.com. Prior to joining the Center, he worked as a developer for Saatchi & Saatchi, Lextranet, and the Democratic National Committee. Brad grew up in Boston, Massachusetts.

This is just another dem smear attempt. Nothing new.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yet another hit piece from a far left web site. Lets look at who runs this thing.

I'm not sure what you define as a 'hit piece' but in any case, it proves that McCain is doing double-speak, waffling, selling-out to Bush's economic policies, which proves my point - that Americans will be putting a Democrat in office in November because 75 percent of them want us to change course.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

My anecdotal evidence on the Bush tax cut the first time was $1400 for me and my ex-wife. Which was enough to pay my property tax on my house for that year at that time.

I was ecstatic about that.

I lost track after that, But I am sure it was better as I made more money after that.

The real truth is that after the Bush tax cuts my company has almost doubled its work force. That is where the benefit is.

Steven I'll lay a Jackson on your McCain vs. Obama bet! You game? And I am not a huge McCain fan.

I do know that the worse thing for an economy during a downturn is to raise taxes. Disastrous in fact!

[mawilson 2,133]

I do know that the worse thing for an economy during a downturn is to raise taxes. Disastrous in fact!

I have to agree.

As much as I like Obama, the fact that he's so gung-ho about raising taxes scares the #### out of me.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Yet another hit piece from a far left web site. Lets look at who runs this thing.

I'm not sure what you define as a 'hit piece' but in any case, it proves that McCain is doing double-speak, waffling, selling-out to Bush's economic policies, which proves my point - that Americans will be putting a Democrat in office in November because 75 percent of them want us to change course.

Yes and I am sure 75% of Christopher Columbus' crew wanted to turn around and go back to Spain when they were about 3/4 the way across the Atlantic too.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yet another hit piece from a far left web site. Lets look at who runs this thing.

I'm not sure what you define as a 'hit piece' but in any case, it proves that McCain is doing double-speak, waffling, selling-out to Bush's economic policies, which proves my point - that Americans will be putting a Democrat in office in November because 75 percent of them want us to change course.

Yes and I am sure 75% of Christopher Columbus' crew wanted to turn around and go back to Spain when they were about 3/4 the way across the Atlantic too.

Are you comparing voter's choice to the crew on 15th Century ship? Don, you can do better than that.

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

ya'll enjoy arguing over this, the real fun is over in mena right now.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

I do know that the worse thing for an economy during a downturn is to raise taxes. Disastrous in fact!

I have to agree.

As much as I like Obama, the fact that he's so gung-ho about raising taxes scares the #### out of me.

I understand exactly what you are saying and I do like the guy also. I am a fiscal conservative above everything. All the rest of it I can live with not getting my way. But I can not stand to watch people destroy my future with these half-baked ideas on taxation and how higher taxes only hit the rich.

So Mawilson, we agree on taxes and big powerful cars. It is a start. I miss my Pontiac!

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Yet another hit piece from a far left web site. Lets look at who runs this thing.

I'm not sure what you define as a 'hit piece' but in any case, it proves that McCain is doing double-speak, waffling, selling-out to Bush's economic policies, which proves my point - that Americans will be putting a Democrat in office in November because 75 percent of them want us to change course.

Yes and I am sure 75% of Christopher Columbus' crew wanted to turn around and go back to Spain when they were about 3/4 the way across the Atlantic too.

Are you comparing voter's choice to the crew on 15th Century ship? Don, you can do better than that.

Sometimes the American public can be just about as naive. What about the $20 spot?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yet another hit piece from a far left web site. Lets look at who runs this thing.

I'm not sure what you define as a 'hit piece' but in any case, it proves that McCain is doing double-speak, waffling, selling-out to Bush's economic policies, which proves my point - that Americans will be putting a Democrat in office in November because 75 percent of them want us to change course.

Yes and I am sure 75% of Christopher Columbus' crew wanted to turn around and go back to Spain when they were about 3/4 the way across the Atlantic too.

Are you comparing voter's choice to the crew on 15th Century ship? Don, you can do better than that.

Sometimes the American public can be just about as naive. What about the $20 spot?

Call it naive or perhaps they're tired of the way the current administration has run things and they want somebody who's going to take this country in a different direction...either way you want to define their motivations, they're not going to be voting for more of the same.

I won't bet dollars, but perhaps something from our personal belongings. Let me think of something (small collectible or keepsake) and then you can see if you have something comparible...that'll make it more interesting.

Edited March 31, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[GaryC 7]

Yet another hit piece from a far left web site. Lets look at who runs this thing.

I'm not sure what you define as a 'hit piece' but in any case, it proves that McCain is doing double-speak, waffling, selling-out to Bush's economic policies, which proves my point - that Americans will be putting a Democrat in office in November because 75 percent of them want us to change course.

Yes and I am sure 75% of Christopher Columbus' crew wanted to turn around and go back to Spain when they were about 3/4 the way across the Atlantic too.

Are you comparing voter's choice to the crew on 15th Century ship? Don, you can do better than that.

Sometimes the American public can be just about as naive. What about the $20 spot?

Call it naive or perhaps they're tired of the way the current administration has run things and they want somebody who's going to take this country in a different direction...either way you want to define their motivations, they're not going to be voting for more of the same.

I won't bet dollars, but perhaps something from our personal belongings. Let me think of something (small collectible or keepsake) and then you can see if you have something comparible...that'll make it more interesting.

If you lose and McCain cuts your taxes you could afford to bet money.

I never understood this "direction the country is taking" question. It could mean different things to different people. To zero in on taxes and apply it to our current discussion makes no sense.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I never understood this "direction the country is taking" question. It could mean different things to different people. To zero in on taxes and apply it to our current discussion makes no sense.

It's not just taxes, it's all of Bush's economic policies, which McCain has basically said he will continue that course or 'direction'. McCain is too close to Bush in terms of what he supports that American voters will vote for the other candidate. It's really that simple. The Republican Party will have had 8 years to prove that their policies can make this country stronger and they haven't...end of story.

Edited March 31, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[HAL 9000 96]

Taxation in the right areas, not the blanket, across-the-board maleficient increase the Reps are daydreaming of to come from Obama or Clinton. In the end of it all it will mean the upper 1% of the crust will earn (arbitrary number here) 98% of its profits instead of 100%. They will still continue to be the upper 1% of the crust. Not so bad now is it?

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is an across the board increase. My taxes went down after the tax cuts went into effect (and I am far from rich) and if the expire they will go back up by thousands each year.

That's all great for you and me. I am not even considering previous tax cuts but rather taxing those in the upper 1% crust, as the candidates have adequately proposed.

That way, very logically, this tax proposal is synonymous with a tax cut for those that are not rich. Its not a cut when the far from rich are not taxed disproportionately when compared to those that evade and benefit from the current system of taxation, as it exists at this time.