When I hear Obama speak about his tax proposals it’s all pretty clear to me.
- Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.
- Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
- Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.
But for some reason McCain/Palin hear three different plans and say that Obama keeps changing his own definition of “middle class” family.
McCain Delivers Remarks in Miami, Fla.
CQ Transcripts Wire
Wednesday, October 29, 2008; 11:10 AM
Senator Obama has made a lot of promises. First he said people making less than 250,000 dollars would benefit from his plan, then this weekend he announced in an ad that if you’re a family making less than 200,000 dollars you’ll benefit — but this week, Senator Biden said tax relief should only go to “middle class people — people making under 150,000 dollars a year.” It’s interesting how their definition of rich has a way of creeping down. At this rate, it won’t be long before Senator Obama is right back to his vote that Americans making just 42,000 dollars a year should get a tax increase. We can’t let that happen.
Whatever dumbass. It’s called misspeaking. You know, like when your VP
playmate running mate thought she was in the Northwest when she was actually in New Hampshire. The McCain tax policy would be difficult to make a numerical blunder on because he isn’t giving specific numbers. Hell, McCain doesn’t even know if the fundamentals of the economy are strong or in crisis.
FactChecking Debate No. 3
October 16, 2008
Updated: October 17, 2008
McCain was wrong to say Obama’s March 2008 vote for a budget resolution “increases” anything. Budget resolutions set targets for taxes and spending; actually raising or lowering them requires separate legislation.
The $42,000 figure also would only apply to single taxpayers, not to couples or families. As we’ve reported, a single taxpayer making more than $41,500 would have seen a tax increase, but a couple filing jointly would have seen no increase unless they made at least $83,000, and for a couple with two children the cut-off would have been $90,000. Regardless, the increase that Obama once supported as part of a Democratic budget bill is not part of his own current tax plan. And Obama was right when he said “even FOX News disputes” McCain’s $42,000 claim. Chris Wallace of Fox News agreed that it was misleading.
Fact check: Plumber Joe’s taxes
McCain has entrepreneurs spooked about tax hikes, but fewer than 2% of small business owners would pay more under Obama’s plan.
By Stacy Cowley
Last Updated: October 17, 2008: 2:59 PM ET
The bottom line: McCain’s claim only works by using an overly broad definition of what counts as a “small business” – and even with that definition, fewer than 2% of business owners would be hit by Obama’s proposed rate increase. For those who are affected, the increase would be levied only on a part of their earnings, not all of them.
Obama the liberal: Let’s look in our dictionaries for a moment.
lib•er•al – Show Spelled Pronunciation[lib-er-uh l, lib-ruh l]
- favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
- (often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
- of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
- favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
- favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
- of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
- free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
- open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
- characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
- given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
- not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
- of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
- of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
- a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
- (often initial capital letter ) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
Frankly I don’t see how calling Obama a liberal is supposed to be a slam, so let’s move on to Socialist. We seem to hear this mostly when referring to his health plan, which isn’t socialist. He is opening the plan offered to Senators to everyone so that it reduces the cost as an individual. If you’re already insured by your employer and like what they offer then you can keep it. I for one wouldn’t mind if our health care system went through such on overhaul that it was completely socialized. So many think that it can’t work or that the government is so fucked up that it couldn’t possibly duplicate the health systems that EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION HAVE EXCEPT THE US! Supposedly, we are the “greatest nation” yet we don’t even provide health care to our own people. I say we take a step back and look at some of our other socialized systems. If something happens to you, do you feel safe calling the police and believe that they will most likely help? You can gripe all you want about speeding tickets or certain unsolved crimes, but for the most part they do their best to make sure they catch the right person, don’t they? Firemen do a great job as well; we have public libraries and public education. If you’re not happy with public education, you can still send your child to private school and that can work for health care as well. There is no such thing as the perfect system that will please everyone all the time, but as someone without any health care at all I view some care as better than none.
Obama the Muslim: I’ll just quote Colin Powel on this one.
CQ Transcript: Colin Powell on NBC’s “Meet the Press”
Oct. 19, 2008 – 2:35 p.m.
I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, “Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.”
Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim; he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian.
But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America.
Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?
Obama the terrifying terrorist who palls around with radical old hippies:
Republicans play up anti-Obama terrorist charge
Sympathizer Claim; ‘Dangerous’ and desperate strategy, Democrats say
Sheldon Alberts, Canwest News Service Published: Thursday, October 09, 2008
The two men sat on the boards of two Chicago community organizations and live in the same Hyde Park neighbourhood. Mr. Ayers hosted a political event for Mr. Obama when he first ran for the Illinois senate in 1995.
Mr. Obama has repeatedly denounced Mr. Ayers’ activities in the 1960s as “detestable,” says he has had no contact with him since 2005 and accuses the McCain campaign of practising “guilt by association.”
The Obama-Ayers relationship has been the centrepiece of a broader effort by McCain aides to portray the Democratic candidate as too “risky” to be elected president, with Ms. Palin leading the attacks.
They sat on two community boards together and live in the same neighborhood, my god he really is palling around with dirty hippie vegan commie-pinkos. *eye roll*
Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths
By SCOTT SHANE
October 4, 2008
But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”
“If Barack Obama says he’s willing to talk to foreign leaders without preconditions,” Mr. Hayden said, “I can imagine he’d be willing to talk to Bill Ayers about schools. But I think that’s about as far as their relationship goes.”
Over Two Dozen Lies Refuted About Ayers And Obama
John K. Wilson
Posted October 6, 2008 | 08:04 AM (EST)
LIE: “They live half a mile from William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist” and “Just a half a mile from those homes is Louis Farrakhan.”(Hannity’s America, October 5, 2008, “Obama and His Friends: History of Radicalism”)
TRUTH: It’s true, of course, that Obama lives in this same neighborhood, as do tens of thousands of other people who presumably are also guilty by geographical association. The logic of this argument would be, if you live half a mile from a sex offender, then you agree with child molesters.
LIE: Obama and Ayers “appeared together at various public engagements…it would seem that they are more than just a little bit friendly.”(Sean Hannity, Hannity’s America, October 5, 2008, “Obama and His Friends: History of Radicalism”)
TRUTH: Appearing on a speaking panel is not a sign of friendship. There is no evidence that Obama had any role in ever inviting Ayers to speak.
“Go vote now. It will make you feel big and strong.” – Bob Schieffer’s Mother