The American Spectator

steve jackson| 10.17.08 @ 1:56PM

finally someone says it. Obama's plan is not a tax cut it is a tax credit. people will not see their paycheck take home up but will see larger refunds 3 months into the next year. All the while prices for everything they buy throughout the year will increase because of the massive increases on businesses. In the end it will be a wash. The middle and low class will pay for the tax increases of the businesses and the rich and will really end up getting hurt even more under Obama's plan.

Bryan Dilts| 10.17.08 @ 1:57PM

Okay time to set the agenda. Every time Obama says tax cuts, we need to say, "Obama's massive expansion of the welfare state."

Understanding that Obama wants to add 1/3 of all Americans to the welfare rolls is shocking.

Joe W| 10.17.08 @ 2:20PM

As bad as taxes are for anyone, the comparative idiocy of our brainless Republican Policy of lowering taxes while increasing spending is truly abhorrent. If I did this with my personal finances, I would be thrown in jail.

That Republicans are still trying to “protect” the golden parachutes of criminals (indictments are on the way) with tax money, shows their total contempt for average, hard working American. That the Bush (read – Republicans) would veto pay as you go insurance for American children, while bailing out the corrupt, enriched bankers with hundreds of billions of tax money, is well beyond criminal. Raising the income tax on the wealthy by 3%, to enable us out of this Republican hell hole, is infinitely less painful than continuing to run our previously rich nation into Economic Collapse.

James M. Farrell| 10.17.08 @ 2:22PM

I have viewed the debates in a lovely hotel bar with about 30 hard-core Democrats, all friends of mine. They are mostly of middle age and they know I'm a conservatie Republican. What astounds me is that these are people who still hate Ronald Reagan and GW for acually cutting income taxes and they cheer Obama for proposing to do the same! When I forcefully told the group that the "working poor" and the lower middle class don't pay any federal income taxes and Obama's 95% claim was therefore a fabrication, they stared at me as though I was speaking Greek. Many of these folks are highly educated but none had a cogent response. Obama has them in some kind of a trance. It's weird and a bit frightening. In the final debate I counted 5 instances of McCain 's response to a question being openly laughed at and then Obama's nearly identical response and agreeing response being greeted with vigorous applause! I'm getting nervous!

Jen Peiler| 10.17.08 @ 2:23PM

I'll admit that I don't know whether Obama's proposed tax plan will make any difference. But I'd like to ask the people who commented, whether they have experienced poverty or been unable to pay their bills. Just food for thought.

Joe L| 10.17.08 @ 2:26PM

Joe W hopefully those indictments will include barney frank,chris dodd and the rest of the liberals that caused this mess.

Dima Iva| 10.17.08 @ 2:28PM

I am from Canada and would like to find out what's wrong with helping other, less fortunate people? I live in one of more "socialist" western countries with some forms of subsidized medical care, child care and unemployment assistance (and the spectrum is large, so you be better off in France than, say, in Canada).

It is nice to have a few weeks paid vacation and have a part of your doctor's bill picked up by the state.

If I made more than $250,000, say $300,000 and $50,000 of those were taxed at 39% vs 36%, I'd end up paying $1,500 extra a year, while nurses, teachers (and yes, unemployed people, too) would receive some help from the extra $1,500 I paid.

Are you THAT greedy? I you made more then $250,000 (and I sincerely wish you that), would you prefer no keep $1,5000 and continue seeing others in your city and state struggle? Or is it the "Die rich or die trying", everybody for himself, American dream thing?

Dan, tX| 10.17.08 @ 2:29PM

That's funny, when I read the Tax Policy Center report it is clear as day that Obama's campaign is right. The "left-leaning" Tax Policy Center may be "left-leaning" relative to you, but actually it is centrist, with moderate republicans and democrats involved.

I have to say, I can't imagine living in this country making less than $40,000 a year. In fact, it is hard to imagine living a good life earning less than $100,000 a year with a family of four. How can it be done? So, the fact that Obama's plan gives those folks a tax break while he takes taxes back to the rates they were under Ronald Reagan doesn't bother me much.

Taxes can be too high. Taxes can also be too low. Finding the right balance is what we need to argue about. Unfortunately, George Bush has given lots of ammunition to the side that says taxes are too low on those making more than 98% of everyone else. If you can't afford paying the tax rate we paid under Reagan, then you'll be fine under Obama's plan. If you can affort to pay the tax rate we had under Reagan, it will be OK. Unless you make more than $450,000 a year, it won't hurt too badly. It's those atheletes making $10 million a year who are going to get slammed hard.

Jason| 10.17.08 @ 2:31PM

But Obama's plan does give more back to the middle class than John McCain's, correct? The answer is yes. 3x as much tax relief than McCain's, according to the same Tax Authority quoted in this article.

And, to follow up on Steve Jackson's post, you could always claim more money on your check during the year instead of waiting until tax season.

Dan| 10.17.08 @ 2:36PM

Dima,

It's not that Americans don't want to help those less fortunate. The fact that the government tells me that I *have* to help them is what will keep me from voting for Barack Obama. There are many Americans who are in need of public assistance, either through the fault of government policies that keep them down, or some other confluence of bad luck. But there are many who are philosophically opposed to hard work (I call them "lazy"), and those folks - just as in the 1960s - would be the ones who benefit the most from the "spread the wealth" attitude of an Obama administration.

Let's face it - I earned my money, and I want to keep as much of it as I can. If I want to help someone on my own, I'll do that - but I don't want to be told that the fruits of the sweat of my brow will be used to allow another person to wallow in laziness. I have a philosophical aversion to socialism, personally.

James M. Farrell| 10.17.08 @ 2:37PM

Hi, Jen! The only time in my life I ever technic-ally experienced poverty was at the end of the Carter presidency. I gather you're too young to have been working then but things were pretty grim. I took matters into my own hands and moved across the country to take a job. I would have never dreamed of letting the government see me through those times. The only "difference" Obama's proposed tax plan will make if it is enacted as proposed is to reduce revenues to the Treasury, chase business overseas, and reduce the desire of entrepreneurs to parlay their ideas into businesses and good jobs. Take that to the bank!

Richard| 10.17.08 @ 2:45PM

Dan strikes at the core of the Republican mindset -- because I work my ass off at some posh desk job, one that I got because my parents were wealthy enough to allow me to go to a good school, other less-fortunate people are 'lazy.' The people who made millions from mortgage trenches and the default credit swap market did hardly any work and screwed up the credit markets for main street. There is an issue here of justice. Equitable corporate taxation is good for the economy in the long run, because cheaper education, smaller medical bills and good schools tend to raise up the middle class, who buy more stuff, which feeds back into the economy. The post war economy boomed, in large part because of the New Deal.

IndyBob| 10.17.08 @ 2:46PM

Has anyone taken into account that along with Obama's "95% Illusion" (as per the Wall Street Journal, I ran those numbers myself 3 weeks ago and my findings were vindicated by that article) the Democrat plan to let the Bush Tax cuts expire will in actuallity result in a NET TAX INCREASE FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS?

Sneaky Bastards!

Watch your backs Taxpayers.... Watch 'em Close

James M. Farrell| 10.17.08 @ 2:52PM

DIMA IVA: There's absoluely NOTHING wrong with helping out the poor and/or less fortunate. BUT in America we believe that that task should rightly fall to individuals and private carities, not government. When you voluntarily donate time goods or cash to private charity you do so from the heart. When government forces you to give to its "charities" you become a slave. Americans give enormously to private charities even while government confiscates a good chunk of our income for no other reason than to give it to someone else. Does that help?

diana| 10.17.08 @ 2:55PM

To Dima Iva - From my perspective, a conservative republican, I think folks should simply live within their means. I actually live far below my means, save diligently and do not indulge in fancy materialistic things (except some nice traveling). Teachers and nurses both make a good wage. If a person was to live within their means on those wages, there is no need whatsoever for assistance from others. I have lived on wages FAR BELOW that of a nurse or teacher in my youth, and survived just fine, I just had to live within a budget and be responsible about how I spent the little money I had. I do believe there should be a "safety net" but only for those that are totally unable to care for themselves or have endured a terrible hardship (and that is likely a small percentage of the population). Other than that, I think semi-intellegent able-bodied adults should be able to take care of themselves. It is not hard to live an inexpensive lifestyle. We already pay plenty in taxes, what they need to do is spend the money WISELY, not tax us more, it isn't about being greedy, it is about common sense on all levels, from the government on down to every individual. I don't think our constitution states that every citizen will be taken care of by the government, or that if you are a successfull citizen it is your responsiblity to take care of others. We all have a multitude of opportunites to succeed. You are right that $1500 isn't a big deal if your wealty, but it is the PRINCIPAL that has folks worked up. And it isn't that we don't want to help our fellow citizens, most of us make charitable contributions (or volunteer our time) to help those less fortunate. I don't need the government to do it on my behalf.

Lloyd, Dallas Texas | 10.17.08 @ 2:55PM

Dan, its not the fact that someone can afford to pay more or not, but the fact that Obama proposes to give people who do not pay federal income taxes a check from the federal government that is outrageous. These are not tax cuts he is proposing, but "refundable tax credits," which means people get them whether or not they pay federal income taxes! This is simple income redistribution. It takes money from federal taxpayers and redistributes it to non-taxpayers. We studied such a system in college, I think it was called socialism...

I don't make $250,000+, but hope to make that much someday. When and if I do, why should I be punished? It cost me a $100,000+ in student loan debt to get to my current job and countless days of little sleep to both work and go to school in the hope of making a better life for me and my family. Obama's plan is a slap in the face!

Maybe I could get behind a tax increase it we are going to use it to shore up social security and medicare or to pay down the deficit. But, to just give it to those who have not paid in is makes no sense.

Eric| 10.17.08 @ 2:58PM

Equitable corporate taxation? What is at all equitable about the CURRENT situation? Our businesses in this nation pass on to the consumer the 2nd highest tax rate in the world. Thats correct, I did not use the word "pay" because businesses don't pay taxes. They collect taxes from the consumer in the form of higher prices and then pass it along to the government. The 2nd highest rate in the world. The top 1 % of taxpayers pay roughly 37% of all taxes in this nation. The bottom 50% pay 3.3% of all taxes. How is that equitable? Somehow nobody thinks businesses and the rich pay their "fair share" malarky. I am not rich. I would get free money from Obama. I don't want it. I would rather not have the price of everything I buy go up. I would rather have jobs created. I would rather encourage businesses to stay in America, rather than raising their tax burden so high it drives them to a nation like Ireland with 1/3 the tax rate.

Mark C| 10.17.08 @ 3:07PM

Obama's "plan" is not a tax cut. It is purely and simply an income redistribution plan. Let's be clear, income redistribution mandated by the government is socialism. There is no way to perfume that pig. I donate money to various organizations that assist families, individuals and communities. The fact that I can direct that money to those who are truly needy and who deserve the assistance makes me happy to give. Under Obama's redistribution plan, I am forced to "donate" and I have no control over where the money goes. Personally, I resent the thought that my hard earned income would go to benefit some lazy deadbeats that are being rewarded for having a pulse. No offense Dima, but very glad I don't live in Canada.

Richard| 10.17.08 @ 3:09PM

Ireland does have a competitive corporate taxation rate, which helped encourage the economic boom there.

However, there are other important factors. Education is free in Ireland. Ireland also has public health care, 79% of which is paid directly from the government.

Richard| 10.17.08 @ 3:11PM

Oh and that's good Mark, we wouldn't want you anyway, or anyone else scrambling up here because we've created more jobs per capita in the past year than you, have a more stable housing market because people here don't file for bankruptcy when they get sick, and have a stable regulated investment economy which means we're still giving out loans left right and centre.

Dave H| 10.17.08 @ 3:13PM

Joe W: do you understand how a business can make more money by lowering its prices? If not, then sit down and be quiet. The answer is, "increased volume." When taxes are lowered, the volume of profitable ecomonic activity, or total output, rises (which actually happened with the Kennedy, Reagan and GWBush tax cuts; unfortunately, the debt grew because spending grew faster than revenues). When economic output rises, tax revenues rise as well because there's more profits to tax. So a lower rate can lead to increase revenues. Just like having a sale, that is, cutting prices, can increase a store's revenues. It's not rocket science.

James M. Farrell| 10.17.08 @ 3:13PM

In the late 70's I left my parents extremely modest home to make my way in the world. In March of 1979 I spent a week visiting my parents at precisely the time my dad was working on his taxes. The experience changed me forever. My dad had a fantastic position with RCA in New York. He came from a poor family, put himself through law school and worked his butt off. He made great money and we lived a very modest lifestyle. Anyway, in that fateful week I watched my dad slave over Federal tax forms, New Jersey tax forms, New York State tax forms and New York City tax forms! He wasn't wealthy enough to have complex tax shelters and so just took what deductions he could and bit the bullet. On the last night I watched my father come as close to crying as I'd ever seen him. Pen in hand he was writing out some truly massive checks to these various tax jurisdictions. He looked at me at one point and said "I'm feeding six additional families and I never get Father's Day cards from any of them." That was the night I became a conservative.

brizzle| 10.17.08 @ 3:14PM

As an Obama supporter, I admit that my grasp of economics is not as strong as my understanding of philosophy, politics or writing. I would like to see a better explanation of both tax plans, in fact.

However, I support Senator Obama for dozens of other reasons and I dread the possibility of President Palin. I don't want our nation to invade Iran or North Korea. I want the Patriot Act repealed, I want my President to understand Diplomacy, and I don't want another 8 years of being laughed at by the rest of the world.

I believe Americans hold two ideals above all else in the political arena: freedom and equality. Many people hold these ideals in equal esteem, but some believe one is more important than the other. This is okay, and probably very natural. In fact, those who believe freedom is more important than equality are often self-confessed Conservatives...i.e. Republicans. Those who prefer equality to freedom are often considered Democrats. In this way, freedom and equality exist as endpoints of the same political spectrum. This is how our two-party system works in America...and there's nothing wrong with that, until the president goes all pear-shaped, and refuses to follow the ideals of his party.

George W. Bush has restricted our freedoms, grown economic inequality and doubled our national debt. Now he's dumped 700bn into Wall Street...then a week later decides it won't work, so they NATIONALIZE THE BANKS!!! Is that what you call Conservatism? Seems like socialism to me.

Your great Republican president has privatized Wall Street profits, socialized institutional loss, nationalized banks, invaded two countries, doubled our national debt...and has become a laughing stock around the world.

Your party has shown itself to be incapable of electing real leaders who can think or act rationally, and now you complain that Obama's tax plan is justification for you to vote for McCain?

Let me close with 3 quick questions about the economic theories of our current President:

1) Where would we be today if Bush has privatized Social Security? 2) How much has the Iraq war cost us in money and reputation? 3) How's that Reagan/Bush/Gramm bailout working out for ya?

I agree that tax policy is convoluted, and that it should be better explained by the candidates...but Obama's tax policy is not by biggest concern. And if this is your reason not to vote for Obama, then you clearly cannot see the forest for the trees.

Bob Buck| 10.17.08 @ 3:15PM

What a bunch of greedy people you are. What an advertisement for America you make. What goes around, comes around and I hope you fare well...

mom of twins| 10.17.08 @ 3:17PM

I was quite poor when I worked full time and put myself through undergrad and grad school. My family had "episodes" of poverty when I was a kid. Do I know what it is like to eat subpar food? Yes! Look around at others with SO MUCH more than me? Yes! What did I do? I worked my way through school (Overnight job, no real sleep) and no longer live poor. Would I have worked so hard without having lived in poverty? No! Don't make the next generation so complacent that they have no drive to achieve....

V| 10.17.08 @ 3:22PM

Richard you do realize that the New Deal prolonged the agony and the Great Depression could have ended a lot sooner had we not provided all these "government programs". Anytime the government tries to involve themselves in things they shouldn't we pay for it AKA the "bailout" which did absolutely NOTHING!!!! They have proven time and time again how to mismanage anything they touch. If any one of us performed the way Congress has we would be fired and in prison. In response to your argument about wealth, some people have been poor and worked their butts off to become something. Not everyone who is successful is at some "posh" desk job because mommy and daddy helped them. My parents worked hard and so did I. I EARNED that money and no one else helped me. Therefore what I do with it is up to no one else but me. When did it become the right of a president we elect to decide who gets our money. Especially those who don't pay taxes or do anything to contribute. And yes I give to several charities but that is my choice. It's not Obama's job to "redistribute wealth". That is what is called "WELFARE" last time I checked.

BenJ| 10.17.08 @ 3:22PM

I don't get it. The wealthiest ten percent of the US has gotten richer over the last 30 years. Obama calls for bringing the tax rate for the wealthiest up to the levels of the Clinton years. And conservatives are crying socialism? To be sure, I am concerned that Obama is promising too much to the middle and lower classes in terms of a tax cut. I think both candidates need to be a bit more responsible in what they promise us, because it isn't going to happen with our economy.

Bob Buck| 10.17.08 @ 3:27PM

James M. Farrell | 10.17.08 @ 2:13PM writes...

"He wasn’t wealthy enough to have complex tax shelters and so just took what deductions he could and bit the bullet..."

and...

"On the last night I watched my father come as close to crying as I’d ever seen him. Pen in hand he was writing out some truly massive checks to these various tax jurisdictions..."

1/ The whole point of the matter is corporate America do not, I repeat, DO NOT pay their correct share of taxes, avoiding doing so with tax havens in Leichstenstein and Canary Island banks, multiple bogus companies too complex to chase and plain simple money laundering!

2/ Massive tax checks? couldn't afford to pay his taxes? Obviously spending above his means. There are no suprises to tax...with half a brain, you would have a fair idea what you're in for month to month...

John M| 10.17.08 @ 3:30PM

I must agree with Lloyd. I don't mind Obama's plan of paying more taxes. Those people can afford to pay more. The fact is I'd like to see it go to paying down the deficit and balancing the budget. this whole "redistribution" isn't going to help out anyone if we keep on racking up the old US debt. I wish McCain would get the balls to not compaign for reducing taxes but rather just keep them the same and balance the budget.

James M Farrell| 10.17.08 @ 3:30PM

GRIZ: You lost us at the freedom and equality part. True freedom will ALWAYS result in INequality because the only way to obtain equality is through coercion. Everyone comes to the corner of the space-time continuum I inhabit with different capacities, talents and circumstances. I'd love to play hockey in the NHL for a living but I'm too thin. In an equal world that wouldn't matter, nor would there even be an NHL. True freedom (actually liberty, but that's another discussion) gives everyone the opportunity to utilize his talent in his own way. But to answer your silly questions: 1) Social Security rcipients would eventually be wealthy (t appened in Chile) 2)Wars always cost $$ and I couldn't care less what the rest of the world this of us. 3) What the hell are you talking about?

gateem| 10.17.08 @ 3:31PM

FINALLY, a future president of the u.s.a that see reality as it is. $250,000.00 per year is the hell of a good salary for a family of 4. What OBAMA is saying is that 95% of the u.s.a does NOT make that much. PEOPLE!!!! get it. It is the first time in 100 years that the rich will NOT have their asses kissed by the president of the u.s.a.

Bob Buck| 10.17.08 @ 3:34PM

If the well to do corporations and individuals paid the taxes they are obliged to under the current Bush administration, EVERYONE, INCLUDING THEM WOULD GET A TAX CUT! Greedy, greedy, people...

Xdem| 10.17.08 @ 3:35PM

The treasury states that over $100,000.000 is lost in taxes on unreported income each year. The group responsible for this loss will be eligible for tax cut (welfare) checks under the Obama plan.

No appreciable loss occurs with baby sitters, house cleaners and gardeners since their income is low enough to be exempt from income taxation. The group that has sufficient income to have a tax liability which is illegally avoided is largely criminals. Pimps, prostitutes, drug smugglers, drug dealers, robbers, etc. will qualify for Obama's refundable tax credits.

hard worker| 10.17.08 @ 3:36PM

Dear northern neighbors who think Americans are greedy and selfish: I grew up in poverty without government assistance (my parents worked 2-3 jobs at a time until I was in college). I have worked continuously since I was 14. I worked hard in school to earn a scholarship to college, worked hard in college to get a degree, and have put in many, many weeks each year that greatly exceeded 40 hours. There have only been two times that I've had to choose between groceries & gas for work, because I LEARNED from my mistakes (and I'm embarrassed to admit it was twice instead of the just once it should have been). After decades of hard work, I would like to choose how I am charitable. Does it make sense to give to the charity in which 90% of proceeds go to the intended recipients or to the charity in which less than 20% of proceeds go to the intended recipients in addition to scam artists? That's the difference between regular charities and welfare. The federal government is horribly inefficient at helping those less fortunate, and after working so hard to get where I am, I don't want my money wasted. The government doesn't pay for anything. The money for those social programs comes from the people. Resisting putting more money after bad isn't greedy or selfish, it's practical.

Tim| 10.17.08 @ 3:38PM

Don't call it a tax cut, when I still pay just as much each month in taxes. Call it what it is, government welfare. When over 30% of Americans don't even pay taxes and you send them a check that is welfare. Sounds as though the democrats are trying to buy votes. You pay groups like ACORN to "get out the vote" by signing up bogus voters and low income voters that don't normally vote, then you promise them a $500 to $1000 check, sounds like a scam to me!

JoBu| 10.17.08 @ 3:45PM

If you're unable to see the economic inequality in America, or if you don't care about it, you're not a patriotic American, because your concern is yourself and those like you, not those less fortunate. Not to even mention the "What Would Jesus Do?" question - I'm guessing he'd love to see the "meek" inherit some of America's wealth... Aside from that, if you DO see the economic inequality, can you think of a better (or fairer) way to create equality? It's clear that people will not give up enough of their wealth to create this equality of their own accord, so "charity" is out. The real question being confronted is: Is America about equality or exceptionalism? We can't have it both ways anymore - too much exceptionalism leaves too many behind, which the last 20 or so years have proven. But too much equality? Who knows... haven't ever actually achieved that in this country yet. I say it's worth a try - and if your taxes increase under Obama, it means you're making enough that you can afford to pay more for the sake of AMERICA; I get so annoyed hearing people complain about America taking their money - without America, you don't have that money. Not unless you were born into it. And if you were born into it, you did nothing to deserve preferential treatment anyway. Which, whether you admit it or not, money buys you in this country. I was raised in the upper bracket and currently reside in the middle - and to be honest, I'd GLADLY pay more to reach true American equality. I also, having seen both sides, feel no sympathy when someone making OVER $250,000/yr complains that they have to give too much back to America. After taxes, you still TAKE HOME more than I make before taxes. I work 60 hours a week for that - you're saying you deserve more than me? Because every time I read these "I shouldn't have to pay more just because I make more" arguments, all I can think is that I would love to be able to afford to give more back to the country I love. It's greed, pure and simple, couched by a supposedly moral argument of freedom from government. Give me a break. It's begging out of a responsibility to your fellow citizens; you've heard the saying "only as strong as your weakest part." This applies perfectly to America, and the strong can afford to make the weak stronger, which makes America stronger overall. But of course, the people making these selfish comments were indoctrinated into the conservative concept - which is take, take, take and then complain if anybody asks for something in return. Supply-side really means "we have it, you don't, but trust us, it'll trickle down." Well, in over 20 years, it hasn't trickled down. Time to move onto a different approach. And yes, change is scary, especially because it is an admission that change is needed - which means we're admitting to not operating correctly - and partly because it's the unknown. But the status quo isn't working anymore, and that status quo was set mostly by conservatives in recent history. America is great because of checks and balances... the people have recognized that a shift left is needed to balance an America that's lurched too far right. And you can bet that, 20 or 30 years from now, if we get too far left, we'll lurch back right. History proves this. To sit and say such a shift will destroy America is perhaps the most un-American reaction one can take to an election. Such a shift, in actuality, just demonstrates how great America is - to be able to fundamentally change the direction of the country without a revolution, or coup, or any other type of overthrow, is a uniquely American tradition. We should be PROUD that, even if "our guy" doesn't win, we can still coexist and go about our daily lives as we please, with a great chance for success if we work hard enough. And, by the by, I'm a registered Republican. I just understand that politics isn't ALWAYS better with the Republican platform. Sometimes, the Democratic way is better. If I'm not mistaken, that time from the late 30s to the mid-60s, when Dems were in control, America moved from "influential newish country" to "world superpower." That sounds like success to me.

J.Skar| 10.17.08 @ 3:51PM

Since there are so many poor and illegals, Democrats will always win office by promising 'giveaways'. People are greedy by nature.

TS| 10.17.08 @ 4:03PM

Brizzle: The discussion of equality should have nothing to do with finances or material objects. When you talk about equality we should be talking about the rights and liberties of each and every person. And that we should all be treated the same in the eyes of the government. Equality means we all have the same rights to go after our goals. It is our right to decide whether we want to bust our butts and make it big or we want to take it easy and get by on an avearage working man's salary. That's what equality should be about. The freedom to make the choices to reach our goals, not to make sure that we all end up with the same amount of money at the end. If you want to talk about equality in terms of taxes then we should forget all about any tax breaks and rebates and everyone should be paying a flat income tax. Everyone paying the same percentage no matter how much or how little they make is equal. Even though the people making more are still paying more in total than the people below them in the payscale. But no it doesn't work that way. Instead someone like me who busted my rear end to put myself through school to get myself to a point where I make a modest living, has to pay more taxes than the people who decided it wasn't worth the effort. I knew a guy who went to college with me. He was there on a full financial scholarship and failed out because he was lazy and didn't do a thing while he was there. So now this guy is getting by making very little. From what I can guess he is not paying any income taxes because of his low income. So now what? You and Obama are saying that this guy should get a tax rebate!?!? Give him my tax money!!?? Becuase I decided that I wanted more from my life and worked my tail off while this guy took the easy way out. We should reward him for that?? Where's the equality in that???? Listen I understand there are people who need help. There are plenty of people who can't help themselves. Those we need to take care of. But there are millions of people who can help themselves and choose not to. Those people should receive no help whatsoever!!

richard gallun| 10.17.08 @ 4:05PM

When he said to joe the plummer: " we're going to spread it around" , I think Obama's tongue slipped. However there is a case for spreading it around, particularly at the top were I believe the top 1% of wealth holders own 80 to 90% of our private wealth. The economic argument for today might well be that only by bringing our middle class back to a significant share of the pie will we reinvigorate consumer demand and create again a favorable environment for business. This idea , spreading it around, might be the basis for a viable economic policy. Of one thing I am reasonably certain: supply side economics is dead for some time. The problem which we are facing next year isn't capital, it is demand. And lets take a look at whether a tax increase above $250,000 really has any effect on the job creation of small business. First there is only a small percentage of small businesses that earn pretax at this level and we are dealing with marginal rates here so the effect on aftertax is not going to be crippling. Additionally, taxation is often not critical to a growing company because growth itself, together with existing reasonable accounting and tax laws, creates enough deductable expenses to significantly reduce the impact of taxation. There are also a host of well known tools for the savvy business owner to employ in order to shield income from taxes. That is not to say that the successful small business will not be affected by the contemplated increase in tax rates but as a long time small businessman, I would rather pay my higher taxes, if doing so would contribute to a more healthy marketplace.

Joe W| 10.17.08 @ 4:08PM

To Dave H:

A perfect system would SLOWLY roll-back taxes to a pre-1913 state. No income taxes for anyone (by probably increasing trade tariffs again).

The present problem is that we are developing a “fiat” economy by spending more projected wealth than we have, at the same time as our investments, and homes are plummeting in value, our businesses are tethering like a house of cards, while our once dominant manufacturing base is disappearing. Add to that the sudden huge job losses and decreased work-hours and pay declines, at the same time that the cost of bare necessities has exploded. Lowering the cost of goods in Dollar Stores or Wal-Mart is way too simplistic. By comparison, a 3% Tax increase for a tiny portion of our population hardly seems a Draconian step. Having Warren Buffet working with Obama is incredibly reassuring also. Summarizing: We owe more and more dollars, whose intrinsic value, or redemptive power is crashing, particularly to foreign investors. The United States, by borrowing so heavily from China and Saudi Arabia, has simulated a reverse “Marshal Plan where other countries are carrying our load.” We will have to pay this back with interest. This is the failed legacy of quote “not raising our taxes” by sticking someone else with bill. This is very pathetic behavior by the world’s richest nation.

PAM F| 10.17.08 @ 4:09PM

1st of all gateem....majority of sm businesses in USA gross more than $250,000. So they WILL see their hard earned $$ be taken away by democrats & Obama & given to people they do NOT know. Now under an "equitable" plan, one would RATHER give charitable donations to whomever they WANT.... As for being poor...average railroad family in midwest...my father took up bee-keeping to get his 4 girls thru college...& we all worked on the side to help. But my husband was "dirt" poor. Got scholarships, student aid, worked in pharmacies along the way & is proud of his Pharmacy degree that provides a fairly decent lifestyle.... I find it very ARROGANT of Mr Columbia Obama to think that he can redirect my husband's hard work for someone I don't know & how does Obama know who deserves these cks/handouts??? are they nice people or bad people who want to sit on their ass??

Paul| 10.17.08 @ 4:11PM

I am low income, with a family of six, working for a small business that makes over $500,000 annual. Under Obama's economic plan I will be worse off and the business I work for will be taxed higher therefore my income in real dollars is less likely to increase. Anyone in the middle class who thinks they are in for good times is sadly misguided. Anyone poor like me, will remain poor with less chance of bettering their situation if Obama follows his plan. And it could even be worse because Clinton promised the same thing and kept that promise for about one month and then proceeded to raise income taxes. Later he lowered Capital gains taxes and lo and behold, revenues increased there. If you are mesmerized by Obama and plan to vote that way, don't you dare get upset when he makes things infinitely worse for 100% of the US. You think things are bad for you now, two years from now you will be realizing what a disservice the press has done for the country by ignoring the facts and printing stories that have been spoonfed to them by corrupt insiders.

Robert S.| 10.17.08 @ 4:15PM

I'm a bit new at it, but I'm really confused...as far as I can tell, based on the tax tables and the standard deduction, any individual making over $6,000 per year pays taxes on their income, and any individual making over $16,000 per year pays at least $1,000 of taxes on their income. Isn't that just about everyone who is working or supporting themselves or their family? If that's true, then how is it that more than a third of Americans don't pay any income taxes? I know that I've been paying taxes on my Community College Mathematics Instructor's salary of $18,000 per year for the past three years now, so I'd love to know what I'm missing in the whole system.

NOTE: Any corrections to my understanding of the tax system will gladly be accepted.

Don VA| 10.17.08 @ 4:17PM

The fact is those with little or nothing are ignorant and lazy. Unlike one of you writing in, my parents were not wealthy. I earned by way through one of the highest rated universities in the southwest. I have alway made good money and my family has contributed significantly to those in need through our church and community organizations. Any fool knows the tax credit is a gimme for the ignorant and lazy; only bleeding hearts and those on the dole support obama and unfortunately, there are more and more of such goofies and they are breeding like most parasites.

Bob in MD| 10.17.08 @ 4:27PM

Joe will pay much more, either $7,674.50 or $12,674.50 per year more under the Obama Plan

assuming he owned the company and the $250,000 is salary. Employers pay half of the social security tax, employees the other half. Since he would be both, employer and employee, affectively, he pays ALL of his own SSI tax.

EXAMPLE:

Joe’s AGI = $250,000 with filing status: single

Supporting info and calculations below:

FROM THE OBAMA WEBSITE:

Taxes: The top two income tax brackets would revert to their 1990’s levels of 36% and 39.6%.

Seniors & Social Security: Obama does not support uncapping the full payroll tax of 12.4 percent rate. Instead, he and Joe Biden are considering plans that would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 percent more in total (combined employer and employee). Thus, either $5000(2%) or $10000(4%) more in SSI Tax split between employee and employer. Since he is the boss, he covers both shares of his own SSI requirement. Thus $5,000 or $10,000.

IRS 2007 Schedule X — Single

If taxable income is over-- But not over-- The tax is:

$0 $7,825 10% of the amount over $0

$7,825 $31,850 $782.50 plus 15% of the amount over 7,825

$31,850 $77,100 $4,386.25 plus 25% of the amount over 31,850

$77,100 $160,850 $15,698.75 plus 28% of the amount over 77,100

$160,850 $349,700 $39,148.75 plus 33% of the amount over 160,850

$349,700 no limit $101,469.25 plus 35% of the amount over 349,700

$ 782.50 + 3603.75 + 11312.50 + 23450.00 + 29419.50 = $68,568.25 Now - 2007

$782.50 + 3603.75 + 11312.50 + 23450.00 + 32094.00 = $71,242.75 Under Obama Proposed

(uses 36% for dollars over $160,500 through $250,000.)

The difference: $2674.50 in federal tax.

Add the additional SSI tax $5000 or $10,000 for those $250,000 or above =

$7,674.50 or 12,674.50 more under Obama Plan

WOW!

Bob Usher

John E. Vande Woude| 10.17.08 @ 4:32PM

I am a 48 year old registered Republican who has lived and worked in the New York metropolitan area since 1982. I am happily married with two great sons (17 months and 20 years old). After 26 years of hard work, at this juncture, my wife and I are professionally and financially successful.

I am eminently disappointed in George W. Bush, Jr. and the failings of his administration. I am also disillusioned with Congress; the sitting members of Congress and the former sitting members of Congress under Republican control and stewardship.

I have been closely following the presidential debates and spend multitudinous hours fact-checking, researching the candidate's voting records, etc. Just last evening I toiled over the Small Business Administration's statistical data to discern how many small businesses make less than $250,000 per year (hint: the answer is not 98%). The careful wording and double-speak in this election is vexatious but no more so than any other election in our nation's history. And yes, both candidates are equally guilty when it comes to backtracking and/or vagueness on certain issues.

Following Wednesday evening's final debate, I was very impressed with Barack Obama and was exceedingly disenchanted and nonplussed with John McCain. In summary, I was impressed by Mr. Obama's composure, eloquence, preparedness and intellect. Moreover, Mr. Obama authenticated that he understands what is broken in this country and many of his ideas on how to resolve the same appear well thought out and sensible (e.g., health care). Here's the rub:

From a career perspective, my wife and I both started at the proverbial bottom many years ago. In my own case, a $10,700 per year job working in Operations for Merrill Lynch in 1982. We both suffered many economic hardships over the years (e.g,, divorce, child support, family crisis, job loss, high credit card debt, etc.). Nonetheless we worked hard, saved, paid down our debt and ultimately purchased a home (note: we provided the bank with a hard-earned 30% down payment and did not borrow more money than we could afford to pay back). Today, after many years of fiscal responsibility where we sacrificed vacations, skimped on gifts, etc. we are successful to the point that our combined income exceeds $250,000 per year.

Now, in most areas of the country a combined income that exceeds $250,000 per annum would beget a sumptuous lifestyle. However, in the New York City area, we are considered upper middle class. In fact, accounting for the high cost of real estate, expensive property taxes, costly local taxes, a deteriorating public infrastructure and a general high cost of living we certainly do not live a lavish lifestyle. Factor in child care, tuition for our college son and other collateral expenses; every dollar we earn is important if not essential. Lastly, please note that the majority of our disposable income was/is invested in our retirement (decimated as of late) based on the practical realization that Uncle Sam may not provide much by the time we are ready to withdraw from the workplace.

Consequently, the prospect of an increase in the top marginal tax rate for families in our income category has us extremely angry (at a time when we are still peeved that we were not eligible to receive a stimulus check like many of our neigbors mirthfully received because they were in the appropriate income category). Does this mean that we do not care about our less fortunate neighbors? That we don't believe in affordable health care, after-school programs and the concept of providing a "leg up" for those struggling to make it. No, nothing could be farther from the truth.

What it does mean is that we are tired of being financially castigated for our success. That we believe it is fundamentally unfair for the government to reach into our pocket given that the 30% Federal tax bracket we are currently in means we already pay a much higher freight than most Americans. Enough is enough!

Mr. Obama talks about change! However, the concept of "redistribution of wealth" (in our case the redistribution of needed income) is not change. Rather, it is a policy that has been touted and put forward by the Democratic Party for years.

Real change would be for Mr. Obama to put forth a plan that solves this country's core problems by closing tax loopholes for large corporations and the very wealthy, and by eliminating wasteful government spending. Improved ethics and accountability in government would also be fiscally propitious, especially when it comes to failed government projects and sweetheart deals designed to ingratiate local constituents into supporting incumbents in the next election. Obama's ideas on free trade are an important part of the solution (as are many of his other proposals).

Given his capacity to learn quickly/listen to esteemed advisors and his ability to quickly synthesize the same, Mr. Obama should be a shoo-in to win this election. However, he risks alienating many voters (and the election) if he continues to accentuate that he intends to "take from the rich and give to the poor" if he becomes our President.

So, despite all I admire about Mr. Obama, until he takes off the Robinhood hat, I intend to cast a protest vote for Ron Paul.

If he wants to instantly secure victory, he should shift direction and proclaim that he will implement his proposals without reaching into hard working American pockets.

If that were to happen, he would get my vote.

Richard| 10.17.08 @ 4:33PM

I think it would behoove us to examine just who exactly what Obama might have meant by 'spreading the wealth around.'

Let's say you've been raised in a lower-middle class household, and you're very bright, getting straight As at school. You work on evenings and weekends, saving money for college, but also giving some money to mom and pops who lack a university education, and work in low-end positions.

You've received grants and scholarships to a great school, but because you are both helping to support your parents and paying for college, you need to take out a student loan.

You go to school and get a degree in business management. You join a reputable company and earn a good salary, let's say $80 000. You buy a house at a good price and pay a good mortgage rate. It's a bit tight with student loans and mortgage payments, but you manage to get by and open a savings account.

You visit the doctor, and it turns out you have melanoma and will need an operation. That's okay because you're covered by your companies medical insurance. Then your parents get sick, and you have to pay their medical bills.

Now you're walking on tightrope. Then the company downsizes (it borrowed more than it earned), and you're out of a job. Then your mortgage rates shoot up, and your housing value dwindles. The medical bills for you and your parents pile up. You find you can't pay your mortgage, and you declare bankruptcy.

You join millions of fellow Americans, hard-working people who had the bad luck to go and get sick. You are also no good to the economy because you can't buy anything -- you have no credit and no income.

Ireland experienced an economic boom in part because of strategic business investments, but also because the government 'spread the wealth' by making education and healthcare affordable. Low and behold, it turns out this is actually good for the economy. Ireland actually spends less on healthcare per capita than the US! Sometimes government can actually do wonders for the economy, and not merely by getting out the way.

gateem| 10.17.08 @ 4:35PM

PAM F. Do you get 250,000.oo u.s.a.dollars home? if you say yes. Then you have big probles. 1, you are a terrible management of your money. 2. you have never visit an horphanage. 3 you are probably 250 Kilos fat.

Clint| 10.17.08 @ 4:40PM

I am a physician in the U.S. I worked my way through college so I wouldnt have to get a loan. I got a loan for medical school because I couldnt work enough hours to go to school and afford the $120,000 in tuition. I spent 6 years in post medical school training (residency) to learn my specialty (during which time I worked 80-100 hours a week and earned ~$34,000/year, all while having to make $900/month payments on my student loan (because Clinton removed being a medical resident as a qualifier to get a loan payment deferrment in the 90s)). Now I am out in practice and proud to say I am making a little more than $250,000 (still making those student loan payments, except now I can't duduct them from my taxes). I did not come from a "wealthy family" and I went to all public schools. I scrubbed floors in college to afford tuition and living. I tell you all these things to ask, Why should I have to give up more in taxes to be "spread around" to those making less. I understand what it's like to make less. I have never asked for a hand out. I worked hard and borrowed to get where I am. Why should my success be taken away. And lets dont act like making >$250,000 means you are currently getting off scott free. My first year of making that much I paid >$50,000 in income tax under GWB(remember that's more than I made a year in the previous 6 years).

My point is, Robin Hood economics and class warfare will not fuel hard work and determination like an free market type of system. I am all for low taxes for everyone, but personally I think a flat tax rate is the only "fair" solution. I am willing to pay if that is what is being asked of everyone. (For those who are math challenged, 20% of $250,000 is still $50,000, while someone making $40,000/year would only pay %8,000)

Paul| 10.17.08 @ 4:43PM

To Robert S., the amount of tax you pay has very little to do with your gross income. Right now I make $32,000 but I pay over $10,000 in mortgage interest, $3000 in property taxes, am married, and have 4 kids. By the time I deduct everything I think my income is negative which is probably why my kids get free lunches at school and I have no money. I would get a refund each year but I am still repaying the government for the years when I was not a W-2 employee and did not save enough to pay my taxes in full. For those of you that think I am a typical non-tax paying lowlife, in 2002, I think I paid over $100,000 in income taxes. My income virtually disappeared for the 3 years following 2002, mainly from residual effects of the terrorist attacks in '01. Obama is clueless, I don't sit here worrying about how I am going to afford college for my kids. I will never be able to afford that, every college is run by Democrats who only worry about filling their pockets, and leaving the bill for someone else.

Rob D| 10.17.08 @ 4:44PM

Hey Bob Buck, your lack of understanding of basic economics is astounding. You still don't get it, corporations do not pay taxes, they are built in to the price of the product and we pay the taxes wheh we purchase the items...get it. Socialism does not work...look around. The government could not even run a lemonade stand much less a real business. By the way, the New Deal is what has put us in this mess to begin with. Everyone thinks we have government to take care of us. America is the land of opportunity, not government gifts!

jed| 10.17.08 @ 4:44PM

Obama is not the first one to call giveaways to non-taxpayers "tax cuts." Unfortunately, Bush did just that with his tax rebate. With all of the paper and postage costs to send out those checks, they could have just lowered the rate and collected less, or included it in the tax return for people whose salaries are withheld. Unfortunately, neither side is looking good. The fact that our corporate tax rate is the 2nd highest in the world and spending has increased at a faster rate under this government than under the Democrats means we have had a failure of conservatism for the past eight years. I, for one blame cross-over Democrats voting in the primaries for giving us McCain, rather than a more conservative Romney. Both Obama and McCain have the domestic policy sense of true Marxist-Leninists. Hopefully with McCain, we will at least have a strong national defense. Ever since '72, Democrats have been against national defense, preferring to go on human rights excursions and surrender the big fights rather than protecting US interests.

sgi| 10.17.08 @ 4:51PM

"Equality" and "economic equality" are not the same thing. All Americans (and Canadians for that matter) have "equality of opportunity". That means that every citizen has the same opportunities as every other citizen.

It is true that through no fault of their own, some citizens are born into families and communities that are underprivileged. If a citizen is a product of one of these families it is much more difficult to seize the opportunities that are available to you. But even a poor young person can get job training, go to college or university. Or they can work for minimum wage or join a gang or accept welfare.

In the end it's a personal choice.

Economic equality is not achievable without mass redistribution of wealth, usually someone else's wealth. It is true that there are some very crooked wealthy people and they do know how to game the system. But it is also true that most wealthy Americans have worked very hard for their wealth. They have taken advantage of all the opportunities available to them, often at great personal expense, and achieved their definition of success.

Why do some Americans begrudge successful Americans the fruits of their labors? Why do some Americans think that they should enjoy the income of someone else?

I think it begins at the beginning, in our families and our communities. People and families that are self-reliant teach their children to be self-reliant. Everyone can do this.

Paul| 10.17.08 @ 4:54PM

Jed, couldn't agree with you more about the lack of a belief in strong defense. It is not mentioned enough how much Clinton is to blame for the weakening of the nation's security that allowed the '01 terrorist attack. Personally, I was sent into a financial spiral from that event and believe that Clinton's is far more to blame for the current economy than the Bush administration. Bush was just the one unfortunate enough to try to clean up Clinton's mess.

Gary| 10.17.08 @ 4:56PM

I am amazed at the number of people who say the government pays for things. The government does not have any money. The government gets its money from the governed. By the governed, I mean those who actually work for a living or were smart enough to provide for their own retirement and as a result pay taxes.

John E. Vande Woude| 10.17.08 @ 4:57PM

Pam F. It is difficult to determine if your response is directed at my missive. However, given your $250,000 question I am assuming it was. Are you implying that I need to manage my money better so I can give it away to others like yourself? If so, you have proved my point. More obviously you are one of the many lining up with your tin cup in the event that Obama is elected. Lastly, I have never visited a "horphangae". But I would sleep better at night knowing that my tax increase under Obama was being used to help orphans. This makes more sense than the mass distribution of other peoples' money to others just because they are in a different income bracket. You see the problem with that is, while many people with lower incomes may be deserving of a "leg-up", there are many people who are stuck in a certain station in life due to bad personality, criminal activity, laziness, poor job performance, etc. Why should the government mandate that I help those people?

Richard| 10.17.08 @ 4:59PM

But sgi, that's the whole point -- "equality of opportunity," the bedrock of American free-enterprise doesn't exist. You can't talk about equality of opportunity when fifteen million Americans have no health insurance, when Americans don't have relatively equal access to quality education no matter how hard they work.

working in Colorado| 10.17.08 @ 5:01PM

Our family business makes $450,000/ year. My husband works 50+ hours/week. We have 17 employees. Last year we paid the government $78,000 (that doesn't include what we had to collect in sales tax). That is after as many deductions and write-offs as possible. My husband and I took home $34,000!!! Does that sound like a rich republican smoking a cigar behind a big desk that was given to him? NO WAY, built from the ground up with some serious sweat. So, my friends.... wise up, if Obama is in the white house we get to give the govt $10,ooo more! How fun is that? It will be tough to find $ for payraises, upgrades in machinery and technology that is for sure. BTW, we give a lot of $ to our church that helps with homelessness, foodbanks, etc , and it is our honor to do that for other people. But it is not okay that when my husband puts in a 14 hour day, only 8 of those hours go towards anything for our business... the other 6 get to go to folks who don't know how to suck it up and put in a hard days work.

James M. Farrell| 10.17.08 @ 5:06PM

LATE RESPONSE TO BOB BUCK: Bob, sorry for the delay, I had to pick up my kids from school. All I can say in response to your criticism of my father's tax situation and your obvious jealousy-driven class warfare rants is this: I sincerely hope that someday soon, say 3 or 4 years from now when Obama and the Democrats have realized their fantasies with the Tax Code, that you, my friend, somehow manage to become "rich" in their eyes. God knows that whatever you do to get "rich", it will have nothing to do wth your grasp of macro or micro economics but, be that as it may, you will get to experience the agony first-hand. By then you'd understand but it'll be too late. Good luck, amigo, you're gonna need it.

John E. Vande Woude| 10.17.08 @ 5:07PM

Regarding my prior missive on the redistribution of wealth, I think Winston Churchill said it best:

"I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."

James M. Farrell| 10.17.08 @ 5:11PM

WORKING IN COLORADO: May God bless you and your husband. It is folks like you who are the heart and soul of this wonderful nation. Never give up. I

Paul| 10.17.08 @ 5:13PM

How can anyone believe universal healthcare would actually be better for the consumer, other than the chronically ill and hypochondriacs. Equal cost of insurance for someone with a known illness and a 20 year old healthy male? Yeah that's gonna work. How would you like it if your auto insurance company started to insure cars that were on fire and included you in the same risk pool? Think you would be getting good value for what you were paying. You want lower health care costs, start by not allowing people to sue for unlimited amounts. That's where the insane costs of healthcare came from. Next, start getting a handle on insurance fraud by crooked doctors.

Allen Harres| 10.17.08 @ 5:19PM

Stop sending e-mails.

working in Colorado| 10.17.08 @ 5:20PM

James M. Farrell: Thank you! It is truly the working people of America that have the "Audacity to Hope" that our hard work will pay off so that my husband might actually enjoy a week off at home with the kids. That eventually we will reap the benefits of the sweat equity that he has done. I just hope enough people will come to their senses... BTW: My husband is 1/2 Mexican with an incredible family that has NEVER asked for or TAKEN a handout...

Pam| 10.17.08 @ 5:39PM

getemm.....you are so way off base...did I say how much our family makes????no....did I say our lifestyle is fairly decent...yes...... from your response : #1...go back to school & learn how to spell #2...do you have a job??? #3..are you counting on /counting on MORE handouts from the government? With Barack's "redistribute" the wealth...he's begun class warfare...how nice!

James M. Farrell| 10.17.08 @ 5:44PM

WORKING IN COLORADO: It is I who should be thanking you. I sincerely hope that your business and your family prosper beyond measure. I am a salary slave but 4 years ago my wonderful wife started her own business. She delivers babies at home and regularly puts in 70 hour weeks with most home births taking place overnight. She incorporated the business and, as you have experienced, actually takes home a fraction of revenue after taxes, etc. But, hey, your family and mine...we can afford to pay more because we have it easy, right. God help this blessed nation.

Pam| 10.17.08 @ 5:52PM

John Van Woude...you must have me mixed up with someone else...I've never had a "handout" of any shape or form in my entire life!. My husband & I are upper middle class & will be voting for McCain.....in a sound & reasonable society ...socialism doesn't work .... BTW...John's health plan is far & away the better...having government run health system will surely break the bank...they can't even get social security & medicare right...too many variable plus corruption all around...it's not efficient @ all. Pray you don't need emergency surgery....you could die waiting to get a hospital bed or surgical list with government run system...look @ Canada & UK...horrible stories from their socialist health system.

sgi| 10.17.08 @ 5:54PM

Richard, I am sympathetic to your concerns about health insurance. I don't know what the answer is. But I do know that once the government begins to provide for it, something else will have to give. What are Americans willing to give up for socialized medicine?

In Canada, 64% of our federal revenue is spent on education, social services and health care. We cannot pay for better or more timely health care. If some Canadians can afford to, they go elsewhere for health care.

I don't know how our education system compares to yours. But we also have bad teachers and bad schools. Charter schools are gaining momentum here as well as in the US.

We can barely scrape together enough soldiers for a Nato mission to Afghanistan. We rely on the US for our defence. We pay very high income taxes and in some provinces up to 13.5% consumption taxes.

Unlike the US, we do not pull our own weight. Frankly, I think Americans have much to be proud of so I don't understand why so many Americans seem to despise their own country. Of all the alternatives in the world, surely the US is the best? But perhaps you don't understand what the alternatives are?

SMM| 10.17.08 @ 6:00PM

Kudos to Joe the Plumber for being the catalyst of this debate. I find it utterly reprehensible that he is now being slammed and smeared by the Democrats for simply asking a question, which in a rare moment of candor, Obama answered truthfully. I thank Joe for waking everybody up to Obama's wealth redistibution scheme.

Aaron Cord| 10.17.08 @ 6:16PM

The entire graduated income tax system is a form of 'spreading the wealth around'. This 'socialist' policy is already performed by various tax credits and welfare programs. For McCain and the Republicans to characterize Obama's plan as something new, dangerous, or 'un-american' is absurd. If McCain want to talk about fairness, why not discuss a flat tax or national sales tax instead of bashing Obama's plan, which merely tweaks the already existing system to draw more money from the wealthy? More dull characterizations instead of real policy from the McCain camp, in my opinion.

Tom L| 10.17.08 @ 6:23PM

ENOUGH, to all you Canadians, Liberals, White Guilt low self esteem and those worried sick about what the world thinks about you, let explain we we don't like taxes. WE in AMERICA Do not trust the Federal Government with our mondy. We think that polititions take our money then after they take thier generous cut, give to other people in order to buy thier vote so they can stay in power and make more money. That is why we don't like giving money to them. What part of that don't you understand. Besides we don't think that what they do with our money even helps the poor, we think it hurts the poor. So if anyone is against the poor and downtroddon in this country -it is the liberals. Lets face it, without the poor you would have to take a look at yourselfs.

Arvid Nielsen| 10.17.08 @ 6:23PM

I'm sorry, Klein. The discourse is academic. That may be relevant in the context, you seem to put it in, the one of hammering Obama. Now, what would be the purpose of tax cuts according to traditional GOP thinking? Putting money in people's pockets, is the answer. That's what Obama is doing. You can call it whatever you like.

James M. Farrell| 10.17.08 @ 6:49PM

ARVID: When the GOP cut taxes it cut tax rates at every income level, particularly at the top because that's where most of the income tax revenues come from. Obama is proposing to "cut" tax rates for people whose effective tax rate is already zero and to increase rates for the top bracket. All I can see is money coming out of pockets. Besides, all through the 1980's and since 2000 all I've been hearing from Democrats is that "tax cuts are killing the economy!!" What changed suddenly?

SMM| 10.17.08 @ 6:59PM

Aaron, progressive tax rates make Obama's plan more intellectually dishonest, not less so. That the alleged rich already shoulder the bulk of the federal income tax burden makes Obama's plan to further raise our taxes all the more repugnant.

Oregonian| 10.17.08 @ 7:21PM

When Reagan, and later G W Bush, cut tax RATES, the total tax REVENUES went up!

When Obama and the Congressional Democrats increase tax RATES, what will happen to total tax REVENUES?

Take your time with your answer: I know it is a tricky economic concept for economic liberals who don't understand that corporations don't pay taxes but pass them along to the people who use their products. Oh, that would be YOU!!

Chloe| 10.17.08 @ 7:40PM

As a owner of a "small" business (my husband and I) we do make over 200k but we also live in NYC and in NYC 200k is nothing, we already pay a lot in taxes, and if we have to pay more I am afraid we will have to move. It is hard now, we pay our own health insurance, I don't think going back to welfare the way it was is the answer, I don't mind helping but if its taking away from my son I am sorry it's not right, It will not motivate people to work harder if it means that have to 'give it away, I have MS and work as I can to help my husband in his business but I can't for much longer, Does Obama consider this, I feel that he hasn't been honest w/us and I want Hillary.

CaLviN| 10.17.08 @ 8:03PM

I can tell you right now, if Barak wants to provide health insurance for my kids, I will drop them from my work coverage in a heartbeat. It worked in Hawaii...didn't it?

Tim| 10.17.08 @ 8:13PM

Wow. I can't believe the level of ignorance here. The Obazombie idea of how our economy works is mind-blowing. Folks, throwing $1000 more at lower income families is a popcorn fart in a windstorm. They will not spend huge amounts more money because that's not how Americans live. Americans spend money based on their life cycles and their socioeconomic statuses (examine the National Expenditure Survey at www.bls.gov if you don't believe me - see how the lifecycle pattern is relatively unchanged year after year). They spend very little in their twenties, but huge amounts in their forties. You cannot change these patterns, and you will not change the spending level of a family unless you change their socioeconomic status (wealthy do spend more than middle class who in turn spend more than low income). $1000 "tax cuts" will not do that.

On the other hand, taxing people with a $500,000 annual income (I know - fat cats! Hey, a lot more than I make!) an additional $7,500 per year WILL make a difference - and not a good one. You see, there is a high likelihood that $7,500 would have been invested in some sort of enterprise (one way or another) that would have created jobs that might help to offset some of the oncoming job loss from the looming (?) recession. Now, when low and middle income people lose their jobs, THAT leads to a change in socioeconomic status - but not the one we want to see.

Hopefully you guys can see that lower taxes, especially business taxes, lead to more jobs and a better economy for everyone. This is expecially important when we see a difficult economy ahead that will need to have a way to create SOME jobs.

Furthermore - if he wants to add an additional entitlement program, why doesn't Obama just come out and say so instead of making up a phony "tax cut" to do it? Simple! "Entitlements" aren't politically palatable, but "tax cuts" are.

OH-BAH-MAH ... OH-BAH-MAH ... OH-BAH-MAH

J.J.| 10.17.08 @ 8:31PM

So funny how far this country has gone off track everyone is so afraid they might have to give up a little comfort...and that there may be a few people who benefit and dont deserve it...but many who do need it....we just gave 700 BILLION dollars to rich folk who got themselves into a mess and we spend 10 billion dollars a month on the war in iraq...we have COMPLETELY ABSURD PRIORITIES IN THIS COUNTRY...PRIMITIVE

J.J | 10.17.08 @ 8:34PM

Oh AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST ...Dont fool yourself into to trying to con us poor folk into the idea of "the trickle down effect" RICH FOLK spend all their time trying to figure out how to KEEP MORE OF THEIR MONEY TO THEMSELVES!!!! thats why obama is taxing them more because the poor have been taxed too hard for a long time

Yeshuanation| 10.17.08 @ 8:43PM

It doesn't matter if he "cuts" our taxes. When he raises the capital gains tax, tax on businesses, tax on fuel (the oil companies will raise prices when taxed) our economy will tank. Today's economy will look like a sunny picnic compared to what it will be... Vote Inowanobama

Dima Iva| 10.17.08 @ 8:51PM

Thank you for the comments, folks. I see where you're coming from. We sure have a different history and mindset when it gets to wealth distribution.

On a side note, I can't help but ask myself how many of us who commented on this article actually DO make more than $250,000? I make $50,000 and I'm as well or better off than an average Canadian household.

My "marxists" stereotypes suggest to me that people who make over $250,000 should be in a golf club or a club where rich people socialize (you know, expensive membership, cigars etc. :) Can't see them spending valuable time writing comments on sites.

If my crooked logic is correct, may it be that many of those who disagree with Obama's proposals are not actually going to pay more tax since they don't make enough money for that? That would illustrate this other stereotype that many Americans prefer to suffer for quite some time without proper health insurance and vacations (some - all their life) in order to one day rip the benefits of being low-taxed rich.

But then again, I admit that I may be wrong.

Hypereye| 10.17.08 @ 8:54PM

ABSATIVILY & POSALUTLY! Obama is gonna put Americans deeper in debt. As McCain wants to make certain you will first and always have a base (HOME) to work from and continue with taxes that will have no great impact on society; Obama does not care whether you have a home or not. He just doesn't care.. He does not want to spend some of that $700.000.000.000 too make sure one of your basic needs is met. SHELTER!! Obama is spreading enough stuff around as it is and we need our high water boots on while we are stepping in it. A McCain in the hand is worth 5 Obama's in the bush.

Proud to be un-American| 10.17.08 @ 10:21PM

Dima - exactly right! Most Americans suffer from this illusion (the "American Dream") that they all will be rich some day, but are too moronic to realize that in actuality it's maybe 1 in 100,000 dishwashers who actually becomes a millionaire. But hey, everyone COULD, in THEORY. But most Americans also believe in a god, so this irrational "faith" fits right in. And so, many of them oppose a redistribution that would benefit 95% of them because they think they'll BECOME part of the top 5% any moment now! (Actually the redistribution of course would speed up their chances of getting there, as Obama pointed out in his actual exchange with "Joe the Plumber" who is himself one of those fools - his buying that business which would give him that kind of income is apparently just a pipe dream.) Already in 1972 McGovern proposed to spread the wealth, and Americans instead reelected the crook NIXON. And this time they'd rather see a President Palin... The U.S. should really split, let the smarter folks of the West and Northeast go a progressive way, and leave the hicks in Jesusland with one big Idaho and see how they fare in their puritan-capitalist paradise.

Basic Economics| 10.17.08 @ 11:00PM

America has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. When you raise those taxes who actually pays? The customer - with higher prices. When we give more taxes breaks to the middle class will they hire more employees or start companies? No they will not. Government is the most inefficient provider of goods and services. The Federal Government alone is already taking $2.5 trillion out of our economy and many of these writers believe we should give the government even more. While we are taking more from businesses I hope you will advocate for windfall profit taxes on Hollywood and pro athletes. Or are they exempt?

portia9| 10.17.08 @ 11:10PM

First of all, Obama never says it, but his plan is to tax individuals making more than 200k and families making more than 250k. The "95%" is actually more like "81.3%." Also, as is made crystal clear by the article, these are tax credits, not cuts. He also rarely mentions that he will, of course, let the Bush tax cuts expire, thus raising taxes on everyone.

We are starting a long terrifying slide into another depression and the very last thing we need to do is start taxing people more. Anyone who thinks that what our leaders have done will prevent economic disaster needs to take a good look at what happened to Japan's economy. Then, if they think raising taxes on the "rich" will help, they ought to read the many arguments that very convincingly assert that government intervention served to prolong the Great Depression by several years.

By the way, any idiot who would say there couldn't be many plumbers making 250k has obviously never had to call one, or at least has never paid the bill. Plumbers work hard, and are well paid for what they do. What they don't need is to be taxed more by a man who has some of his millions invested (by an exclusive firm that caters to the super rich) in a fund that yields tax free income. Hypocrisy, thy name is Obama.

As for the comments of the person who identifies themselves as a Canadian, I am an ex-pat from that country. As a recovering "social democrat" and former NDP voter, I can attest that it was Canada's failed socialist policies and abysmal healthcare system that shoved me to the center of the political system.

My great fear is that if Obama is elected this country will become like the country I left 12 years ago. A place with few oppportunities for even the best educated, saddled with a rigid, self-satisfied, incompentent bureaucracy and burdened by obscenely bloated entitled programs.

The net effect of "spreading the wealth" is not that everyone is better off, rather it is that everyone is poorer. That's not greed, it's common sense.

Vorenius| 10.17.08 @ 11:36PM

It is bad enough, that Ghadafi, Hamas, Syria, Iran, Farakah and virtually every Muslim Islamic leader as endorsed him, and they are not even Americans!

The Jesse Jackson, the lying scumbag he is, threatens Israel, in the same manner as Iran has, and that is totally destroying the infidels and their country, and he thinks American, under Obama, will stand by, because Obama has stated in his auto-biographies, he would support a Muslim attack against Israel!

As for the taxing the rich, is he going to start with Barbara Streisand? Is he going to give back the $267,000 he took from Fannie Mae to stop the Republicans less than two years ago, who tried to get S.190 heard on the Senate floor, because, they saw it coming, but since every Senator, to include Harry Reid, and the House of Reps, to include Pelosi and the lispy Franks, all took kick backs to stop any Republican action to ward off the problems of the past two years, since the Democrats came into power. The past two years, gasoline sky rocketed, home mortgages went tits up and the economy sank, due to the Democratic Congress taking no actions at all. They were the party of Change all right, and now Hussein is saying he is going to bring change, how can we have change under the most liberal of liberals in the Congress, Hussein, Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Franks?

No Thank You!

JOHN MCCAIN IS THE TRUE AND LEGAL AMERICAN TO BEGIN WITH (ObamaCrimes.com) AND WILL BRING REFORM TO GOVERNMENT!

working in colorado| 10.17.08 @ 11:41PM

JJ: Please see my comment made at 3:41

working in colorado| 10.17.08 @ 11:42PM

JJ: make that 4:01. Thanks!

DE| 10.17.08 @ 11:53PM

As has probably been mentioned here someplace, according to the Obama website the $500/$1000 cut is a tax credit to 95% of the workers in the country. That was the author's inital question, and its surprising the campaign couldn't identify the credit (or that the author didn't bother to look it up on at the Obama website).

See http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf (page 2)

Whether or not the credit is a good idea or not, that's a good debate to have, but the mechanics seem pretty straightforward. As one who will be impacted on the bad side of the proposal, I'm not looking forward to it, but I can stand a slightly more progressive tax system given how hard it is to make ends meet for many these days.

DE| 10.18.08 @ 12:16AM

Another fun historical tax fact, is that the highest marginal income tax rate was (according to the internets) at one time over 90%, and before Reagan was 70%. Brutal.

Dee| 10.18.08 @ 12:23AM

Here is a example of where our $ is going. My girlfriend was going through a hard time and went into the public assistance office for assistance with her electric bill. Upon her arrival she could not help but notice the many people in line wearing brand new Nikes, Baby Phat Jeans and talking on their cell phones. All while she stands there with her 8 month old on her hip, with no cell phone, old sneaker and a pair of Levis. So that's where all your money is going. To people who have time to shop for new clothes and can afford their cell phone bills but cant pay there electric bills or purchase food. There is something wrong with that picture!!!

Amy| 10.18.08 @ 12:33AM

The people who make a good dollar shouldn't be penalized for being successful. They work hard for what they have. They actually got off there asses and did something with there life. I don't make much money, in fact I'm probably close to poverty level. I'm also a full time student and I do not receive Financial support from ANYONE. Why should anyone pay for me? These people need to stop looking for a handout.

greed| 10.18.08 @ 12:49AM

greedy, greedy, greedy

TPL| 10.18.08 @ 1:20AM

Someone needs to mention the aspect of "Marginal Taxes". This is a tax placed upon every last earned dollar above a certain set limit. Right now the Marginal for $100,000 and above is 35%, while it is 20% for under $40,000. The $40,000 bracket currently has a Marginal Tax Rate of 0%, while the $50,000 to $100,000 Income range has a Marginal rate of roughly 12%.

Under Senator Obama's Tax Plans, the Marginal Tax Rate for $100,000 and above will be raised to 50%, while the rate for $40,000 and below will be raised to roughly 40% (Doubled). The $40,000 bracket will see a jump to 35% (From 0%), while the $50,000 to $80,000 range will have these Taxes increased to 16%.

In other words, Senator Obama wants to prevent Citizens from becoming wealthy, and create a larger Welfare dependent sector of America.

President Reagan dropped the Marginal Tax Rates from a Record 70% (Jimmy Carter), to 28%. In the process he also created OVER 20 Million New Jobs. We should learn from our History.

Brian K| 10.18.08 @ 1:41AM

I have a friend who was leaning McCain but switched his vote to Obama after McCain picked Palin. I pointed out that Obama's tax increases on the "wealthy" and businesses and increases in government handouts to the lower-middle and lower classes will serve to drive businesses out of this country, will result in more unemployment, and will form a new welfare state, giving a disincentive for currently unemployed people to work. He pointed out that he thinks Obama's tax increases will have a similar effect on the economy as Clinton's tax increases and will result in economic recovery.

What he doesn't know is that in supply-side economic theory (that adopted by Presidents Reagan, JFK, and Coolidge), there is a point at which tax increases will become too high and result in a net decrease in revenue collected (part of this may be from tax avoidance strategies, most from decrease in incentives to be productive). Clinton wasn't really able to balance the budget until a Republican Congress was voted in in 1994 to help reduce wasteful government spending. Obama is not looking to balance the budget at all, and with a especially liberal Democratic majority in Congress, all we will get is increased spending.

The second thing most people don't know is that while Obama wants to increase the top marginal rate from 36% to 39.5%, he also wants to uncap the social security payroll tax which currently stands at about $106,000 at approx 13-15%. This would result in a tax burden of nearly 55%, even before state and local taxes.

Perhaps Clinton's tax increases weren't high enough to severely hurt business and undermine economic growth in the US. The last time taxes were prohibitively high enough to really hurt the economy was in the 1970s, when it stood at about 70%! These also resulted in less tax revenue collected. The Reagan tax cuts soon spurred an economic boom and also resulted in more revenue collected.

So what Obama is going to do to us is to "spread it around" to re-create a welfare state which Clinton previously reformed (LBJ Great Society anyone?), increase the tax burden on business to prohibitive levels (55% before even state and local taxes), with the result of these tax increases being decreased tax revenue, AND work with a liberal Democratic majority to increase spending???

I just don't get how anyone can say that is the change that America needs.

PL| 10.18.08 @ 2:32AM

With all the talk on taxing earnings of business, it seems that what is often not mentioned is what the writer or blogger means by "earnings". Under Obama's tax plan what will see the higher tax are the profits, not revenue.

Considering that - and I only recently came across that fact after the Joe the non-Plumber story - I fail to see how that alone will cause businesses to lay off employees. The idea in a layoff is to make ends meet, or more perhaps cynically so, to increase profit. I've seen a lot of comments from those who proclaim themselves small business owners (and not saying they are not, just that it would be hard to confirm from blogs) who say they would lay off an employee as a result of the tax increase so that their own profits do not see a deduction. Now that is their right as an owner, so I am not trying to project any judgements upon that decision. However, now with the recent clarification of what earnings means, how would that plan hold any water? Laying off an employee to increase profit will still mean a tax increase.

I do not for one second think that someone who is making under that $250,000 or $200,000 threshold will not aim higher because of a tax increase on their future and hopeful earnings. People who are aiming for higher salaries in that range are not planning on stopping there, so the derail that income goal because of a higher tax percentage makes no sense. I'm going to hang out at $199,999 instead of going for maybe $300,000 or more? I think the same holds true for businesses who truly have a desire to expand. Odds are if you have an expansion plan shouldn't much profit be invested back into the business and then be able to be counted as a business expense and therefore not part of the taxable profit?

PL| 10.18.08 @ 2:55AM

I read through some of the comments and saw it mentioned that we, as Americans, to have equal opportunity. I would argue that the opposite is true. As long as the skills for higher paying jobs cost an increasing amount to obtain, we do not have equal opportunity. Certainly people - sometimes - can work hard and take on more debt to get that education, but in no way is that an equal opportunity. In fact, the inequality starts before higher education even comes into play, putting many at a disadvantage before they are even have learned what an opportunity is. If access to all education were available to all, then perhaps we could say that we have equal opportunities afforded to all. There are only so many grants.

Some might argue that this would be the place where private charities would step in, or should, or would if things were (enter ideal here). I've worked in non-profit/charity. The organization was, is, one that had been established 20+ years before, had offices throughout the state, was successful in it's goals to the point of being a model program for others who were, are, working across the country for the same things. We had the support of many well know names in our area, from businessmen to professional sports teams who donated air time during televised games. We had news coverage. We had political support. We had the support of others in our field. But still, after decades, we could not support our program on private contributions alone. Without public funding we would have closed. As it is we have seen many cuts forcing several programs and locations to be shut down, including those as seen as the next great step in achieving the goals of the community.

There are simply too many needs to be met solely by private donations at this time. There is too much suspicion, rightly so at times, about an organization requesting monetary support. There is often a desire to hold one's hard earned cash to oneself - and that is fine. But to rely on private donations to provided needed community support is also to rely on the economy and when you are talking health and education and shelter, well, isn't that too much to risk? Not only are those things needed for those on the receiving end, but also for society wouldn't you say? There are amazing people out there who support wonderful causes with every ounce of their being, but there just are not enough who are both able and willing.

The organization I worked for provided education , counseling, and long term support to abused and ill children so that they could graduate. The rate at which clients graduated was astounding; 80-something percent each year. I simply mention that to try and demonstrate that a honest, needed, successful program would be dead in the water without public funds.

John| 10.18.08 @ 3:01AM

Go Obama........

PL| 10.18.08 @ 3:16AM

One last observation: It seems a lot of the anger at "welfare" or "hand outs" is because it is felt that more than likely the recipient is one who could support himself and is simply to lazy to do so. I think that says more about the instinctive reaction of the commenter to assume the worst about people. I'm not trying to imply a mistrust of poor people; I think that is too complicated a matter to be discussed based upon a reaction to a singular topic.

I do however think that is must be depressing to assume the worst of people.

As for seeing name brand labels in the ghetto, well, anyone having been to the ghetto knows that knock offs flourish. For every 50 "Louis Vuitton" bags I saw one was real. For every pair of new Nikes there were 75 Wal Mart flip flops. Cell phones were prepaid once the house phone was shut off. Things were also stolen.

One could use those who steal and sell drugs who would benefit from those hand outs as reason why they should not be given. The drug selling, gang banging, stealing environment that is such a part of poorer communities goes so much deeper than laziness and love of crime. Unqualified or undeserving recipients do not prove that a program does not work. Simplifying such a complex problem will not help understand or solve said problem. And for anyone wondering, "Why should we (meaning I) solve that problem?" please pose the alternative. Would that be fencing off those communities so they do not effect others? And what of the children there? Should they be guilty of their parents' sins? Throw them all in jail? Ok, but we still pay for that, why not focus on helping people become contributing members of society?

Seasoned Communist| 10.18.08 @ 3:36AM

What a bunch of jerks! The majority of those who commented are sorry losers who will never make $100K, never mind $250K, but believe in Santa bringing them a winning lottery ticket. Meanwhile, they are ready to deny themselves and the others like them the right for some basic necessities that other capitalist citizens (Europe is a good example) enjoy.

And what's with the notion that only GOP supporters are hard-working, while Dems are lazy bastards? You think too highly of yourselves, methink.

I seriously doubt any of you here is a millionaire, but if you are, then you are not stupid like the other contributors (unless you had a rich daddy like Cindy McCain or Paris Hilton), but greedy, which is not pretty either.

As a Communist, I prescribe you a healthy doze of class warfare and recommend to read a few pages of Karl Marx before bed.

Jeff| 10.18.08 @ 4:24AM

Addressing CLINT ---- This is a progressive tax increase that is proposed. It would mean a few extra thousand to you. Are you really that selfish and greedy. Are you willfully or just conveniently forgetting that most of the eductation you received was subsidized by the tax payer???? Private medical education would have cost you 200K more . . . so stop your complaining and perhaps find it in your heart to give a little back to the society that trained you and trusted you would give back. So what you had to work a little during school? Boo HOO! I did too . . . as a physician trained at a PUBLIC school . . . for which I am grateful and willing to give back to America. Geeezzz. You would think you might have some frickin' gratitude for God's sake. What a selfish perspective.

Addressing PAM F. ---- You are making the same mistake I am seeing all over the place. You are using "GROSS" not "NET" profits in your discussion. If you actually think that you pay taxes on the businesses GROSS then you should read up a bit before feeling so angry about this. If you made a mistake and you instead "NET" more that $250K in profit from a small business --- well, . . . then you are doing fairly well compared to others in this country. Sorry but your taxes will go up slightly on the the portion above $250K. So . . . Are you really that selfish? No really . . . are you that selfish???

Jeff

Longjohn| 10.18.08 @ 5:02AM

Sheesh which part of $250,000 *income* are some of you people too dumb to understand?

For a small business owner to get $250,000 in *income* he would have to do about $2.5 million in business

Obama is talking about income taxes not taxes on how much a company does in business per year

This is what happens when you don't critically think about something and just repeat GOP Talking Points mindlessly

Terry Clay| 10.18.08 @ 5:35AM

I believe many of you, have no clue what a tax cut really means. My household of two makes $15,000 a year between us. We are buying our home, (our largest expense) and own our vehicles (free and clear). We have lived like this for 20+ years. We both have college degrees, but the job market here has been frozen since we got out of school. There has yet been a tax cut or tax credit program that has just given us money. We are not on welfare. The tax credits only are paid to people who make enough to actually owe a tax, they are calculated as deductions and once you reach the level of $0 tax liability, you don't get extra cash. In addition you need to have actually done whatever it is that qualifies for the credit. Like childcare credits, if no kids or no paid out childcare was used during the year, then no credit. A credit for medical deductions requires that you had enough out of pocket spending on medical needs to qualify. Medical care is a luxury in our house (at 53 years, I wish that were not the case). Tax credits will not help redistribute the wealth, nor are they socialist in nature. Taxing every individual rich and poor a given % and wiping out all these credits is much more equitable. Giving handouts to the wealthy and cutting their personal income tax, is socialist, just in a different direction. Corporate Welfare is Still Welfare! I disagree with both these candidates, and I am told "what are you going to do, you have to pick one of them". So wrong, neither of them is going to do a thing for me. And yes there are other choices, good choices of third party candidates who get it. You guys are all caught up in the insanity and illusion that there is a two party system only, when in fact the two parties you keep referencing are the same party with the same old sorry offerings, that will not make any meaningful contributions to America once elected.

jerry| 10.18.08 @ 8:10AM

What I would like to see is an added import taxes on foreign made cars, say 150.00 and given to U.S auto makers, regulated for research for cleaner emissions and better mileage vehicles. I would like to see gas prices dropped 1.00 at the gas pumps and taken from the oil companies showing 300% profits. Prices at the pump increase the cost of every thing we buy. I would like to see a national lottery, regulated to go to different areas such as education and for cutting income taxes. These things would stimulate the economy and give relief to tax payers. We need good ideas, not more control.

Wayne| 10.18.08 @ 10:03AM

Terry: Why are you only making $15,000 per year ? I hate to say it but, yo! you need a better job, better skills and maybe move to a better region. This is America...If you don't like where you are economically then do what you have to do to make it better! STOP relying on politician's to come up with ways to help you! If you think like that then you are part of the problem not the solution. I just went through a major career change, I went from being a house painter...I went back to school, got my BS with honors, found a corporate job with a large stable company, I now have health insurance provided by my employer (of which they pay 90% ...will that be imputed income under McCain's plan?). Live within my means, save 30 to 40% of my income, pay my bills on time (I did these things before my career change as well) Make NO WHERE near $250,000...And now Obama wants me to give money to other people who can't afford to live in America, Land of the Free/Home of the Brave? Are you frikin kidding me? If you want your life to be better..DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Quit whining and learn how to save money (yes you can do it on any income, just Google "Dave Ramsey" if you want to learn how) learn how to learn, go to school and stay out of trouble, live within your means...use a little common sense...Oh and read Thomas Jefferson...HE remains the smartest guy I would have loved to meet... Your Mom probably told you these things...if she didn't than she must have been a Democrat....

Wayne| 10.18.08 @ 10:06AM

Oh, I forgot to mention, I'm now in school for a masters degree....in accounting....If I can go from being a house painter to studying for the CPA in 3 years ANYTHING is possible! This is AMERICA!

Annette| 10.18.08 @ 11:16AM

Early on in the debate last week, I noted that Obama said the following:

Obama: What I've said is I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans, 95 percent...And 95 percent of working families, 95 percent of you out there, will get a tax cut.... Number one, I want to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans.

Then, in Obama's speech in RoanokeVA yesterday, Obama says: 95 percent of middle class Americans

Now, in the span of a couple of days I noted 4 groups of people whom Obama promises a tax cut:

95% of working Americans 95% of working families, and 95% of Americans 95% of middle class Americans

My question is which is it? Is it 95% of working Americans? Working families (does this include illegal aliens)? Americans? or middle class Americans?

All four of these groups is vastly different in size, and I for one want to know WHO Obama is targetting for tax cuts.

Lexy| 10.18.08 @ 11:54AM

Welfare in any shape or form is wrong, whether its corporate or personal. Welfare does not breed independence it only breeds dependence.

I agree that should be an escalating tax for income with a percentage cap. As far as the companies that hide their incomes in overseas shelters, the islands etc... They only do this because its legal for them to do this, they are not breaking any laws. Many companies have moved overseas because it is harder and harder for them to make enough of a profit here. I would rather have a company here that shelters their money from overtaxation and still employs Americans as opposed to a company that has moved overseas and our economy gets nothing from that company, it does not get the employment, the governement does not get the taxes and the businesses do not get the money that the employee spends after the taxes, its a lose lose situation to over tax corporations to the point that they go overseas and then we all lose.

Example: Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.'Since you are all such good customers, hen said,'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying custom ers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.!

And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $ 49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man.'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man.'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison.'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

QWERTY| 10.18.08 @ 11:57AM

FORGET THE TAX CUTS! Cut the damn government spending!

Longjohn| 10.18.08 @ 12:31PM

HUGE flaw in your theory there professor, no one in those upper tax brackets actually pays that largge of a percentage of their income after all the bogus deductions

For example Cindy McCain made $4.2 million last year and paid $1.1 million in taxes, a REAL tax rate of 26%

Myself on the other hand made abour $52,000 and I paid 25% in taxes, nearly the exact same percentage as Cindy McCain who is supposed to be in a 36% tax bracket but in reality paid 26%

When NeoNitWits like you quote tax figures you always quote the FANTASY 36% rate the wealthy pay when the REALITY of the situation is they ACTUALLY pay a much lower percentage that that

Alexis| 10.18.08 @ 12:49PM

Longjohn, thank you for being so blatantly ignorant that you could not assimilate the theory that was given as to why corporations the ones you Koolaid drinkers call the "evil rich" go overseas and we all lose. Idiots like you are obviously the ones that will be getting the "Welfare Checks" from Obama because you won't think for yourselves or see outside your "wealth envy" bubble.

When Corporations pay even higher taxes they either move overseas or pass the tax on to the consmers in the form of a more expensive product, that doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out. So what happens...well because we as Americans are cost conscious these days, we end up buying a less infererior product from China persae' and the American company either goes out of business or moves overseas.

So sit back, draw your "welfare" check because you obviously cannot contribute to society financially or emotionally with your idiotic response based soley on "wealth envy".

A seasoned observer of Marxism| 10.18.08 @ 2:03PM

It's been my observation of any Socialistic/Marxist system that those who are charged with ensuring "fairness" end up benifiting the most. I doubt Lenin or Stalin ever went hungry once they were was in power.

Oh, and does anybody really think that a "Universal Healthcare system" would be run any better then the U.S. Social Security system or Freddy and Fanny.

I can plan for the reality of there being no Social Security when I retire, but there is no avoiding the pain of having to deal with a Government run Health Care system should it come to that.

Sherry| 10.18.08 @ 2:13PM

Thank you very much, Alexis for "contributing to society financially and emotionally" so much!

Thank you for generously not taking your business and emotions overseas to, say, Pakistan or Ethiopia.

Thank you for being a hard working American who pays no attention whatsoever to facts and numbers (correctly demonstrated by Longjohn), but prefers to be guided by grid and outright false advice of a "Professor" from Georgia.

We need more people like you and soon 95% of Americans will have no jobs or money to buy stupid Chinese (and any other foreign) inferior products because they will have no money and will owe their soul to the company store and insurance companies.

That way, America will stop being a potential market and nobody will bother us with their stupid welfare propaganda (nor jobs and investments) and the 5% (Cindy McCain included, but you - Alexis - not, sorry) will finally officially make the 95% of us their slaves.

Alexis| 10.18.08 @ 3:22PM

Sherrry aka Long John , aren't you just so "funny" or should I say bitter. Here's a good example for you and all your "wealth envy" friends out there.

There are trade offs in hiking taxes on the $250k and up crowd - where there are some serious negative side effects that are going to happen. Example. Lets just say there's a family with $400k a year taxable income - at least $100k a year in dividends and capital gains. If their taxes go up substantially - the $20-25k or so it looks like from my reading - that $20-25k has to come from somewhere, and they will have no choice but to cut our other spending. It obviously isn't going to come from the childrens education fund, or their fixed lviing expensese like house payments, utilities etc. So where will the money come from?

A family like this probably pays about $75k a year to household help (nanny, housekeeper, gardener, pool guy, etc..So. they are going to cut that to $50k by reducing their hours and visits substantially - now for example the housekeeper will come once a week instead of two - that frees up the $25k to pay the taxes. The problem is that this is really going to hurt these folks - the housekeeper's income goes down 20% until she can find a new client - especially because others who employ them are planning to do the same. That means they then pay less taxes and more importantly, they will cut their spending since they'l have lower income - which lessens things like sales tax revenue. If they can't get there with the reductions in household employment, the next step is to start eliminating the $25-30k in charity they give each year - while this raises the amount of tax, it will free up additional cash to make up for the tax hike. Finally, they have already been moving money to tax-free munis and out of dividend and other investments (they've done their fair amount of investing in local start up businesses) to try to lessen the expected burden and to make up for the lessened risk/reward for those investments w/the higher tax rate. Assuming they're not the only ones in this boat, isn't it likely that a tax increase will have much less of a positive revenue impact that people are forecasting? Their lifestyle will stay the same, they won't give up any luxuries persae' but a whole bunch of people who depend on them are going to be the ones that really get hurt.

The funny thing is Sherry, that Obama's plan WOULD benefit me, I make under 50k a year, but that doesn't make it fair. See, I don't just look out for myself, I look at the big picture. I don't want something I did not work for, it is not the governments job to decide who gets to keep their money and who doesn't.

I don't want "welfare" I would dig ditches and have before taking a penny from the government. They did not take me or my kids to raise.

I will always be a contributing member of society in some way shape or form and will not rely on the government to support me.

Stop the sloshing koolaid in your grey matter for a moment so you can see clearly and realize that you are being brainwashed while Michelle Obama is up there doing what you despise so much, take advantage of the wealth while feasting on Lobster and Caviar., to bad their not spreading "the wealth around". Huh??

McCain has donated all of his book proceeds to Charity. Obama has kept all of his. McCain has donated all his raises in the Senate since 1991 to Charity. Obama wants to spread the "wealth" but I don't see him spreading much of his own wealth, like his book proceeds or a percentage of his Senate Pay.

Don't bother bringing up Cindy McCain, whoop de do, she was born with money, and McCain married her. Obama could have easily married money himself and he didn't marry bad at all but he didn't marry "money", not anyones problem but his own.

Oh and by the way, no slaves for me, I work for a Small Business that may not be able to afford to keep me much longer with the tax increases that Obama is going to put into affect, I was the last person hired and have excellent benefits but I'll be the first to go and "welfare" recipients like you and Long John will be laughing all the way to the bank with your "tax rebate/welfare check" won't you?

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson

James M. Farrell| 10.18.08 @ 3:57PM

QUICK NOTE FOR TERRY CLAY: Hey, Terry! Sorry about your situation. Terry, millions of Americans currently get a larger tax refund than what they owed in Federal income taxes. The program is called Earned Income Tax Credit, and it does not simply reduce your tax liability to zero, it gives you back more than you owed and more than what was withheld by your employer. It is actually a payment from government for being in the lower middle class. This is the program Obama wishes to expand. It's the only way he could provide a "tax cut" for those who, at the end of the year, owe no federal income tax (about 35% of working households). The program, reduced to its simplest terms, takes money from those who made it and gives the money to those who didn't. It is legalized theft.

Given your situation I'm surprised you didn't know about it. If your financial situation is as you describe, it stretches credulity that you have missed this all these years.

Joe E.| 10.18.08 @ 4:55PM

Ditto the Jefferson quote. "The past shows unvaryingly that when a people’s freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for. That is the dire peril in the present trend toward statism. If freedom is not found accompanied by a willingness to resist, and to reject favors, rather than to give up what is intangible but precarious, it will not long be found at all." —Richard Weaver, 1962

Joe E.| 10.18.08 @ 8:35PM

Where does this >$250k / yr = "uber rich", CEOs & hedge fund managers notion come from? Is $250k the magic cutoff, below which one is middle class, above which the burden to provide for society falls on your shoulders?

Maybe I'm bias being a resident physician who will potentially be in that category in 15 yrs or so (after making partner or establishing a practice). But 15 yrs from now, I will be 42 yrs old, and will have lived my life up to that point at or below poverty save the few yrs I was a resident making ~$42k/yr, not having any money to invest or put aside for the future (other than Soc Sec and what little I could put in a Roth).

At that point, not counting a mortgage and kids, I'll have $200,000 worth of school loans which have been accumulating interest at +/- 6.8%, the interest from which gets ADDED to my principle, meaning for the first few of the 30 yrs I'll spend paying back over a $ 1/2 million, I won't even be denting the interest...I'll be paying the interest from the interest...it's ridiculous.

My point is not do draw sympathy for my life choices, but to suggest that making ~$250,000 / yr doesn't make you a trust-fund brat, professional athlete, or EXXON big-wig. Sure, no matter who get's elected, making anywhere near $250k / yr you're going to be doing fine. But the notion that everyone making under $250k is hurting is a joke. I know plenty of people that pull in less than $50k but have considerable amounts of stock, family inheritance, etc..

If Barack Obama wanted to attack wind-fall profits and golden parachutes for CEOs, why doesn't he make the cut-off $1 million?

It's because in order to subsidize his 'welfare' programs, he needs to dip to the $250k level. He's perfectly aware that the oil co CEO levels are WAY above $250k, but there's so FEW people making that much money he has to pick an arbitrary dollar amount (based on numbers, NOT some notion of JUSTICE he so often purports) in order to toe the Democratic line and fund his tax 'credits'.

I know, boo-hoo, poor doctor is complaining about his taxes. But just try and imagine paying 3 mortgages at the same time (1 real one, 2 being the equivalent of medical education), on top of raising a family. It ain’t all that grand, folks.

Coastie Jim| 10.18.08 @ 9:24PM

Alexis, Excellent job of explaining what would happen if the wealthy get higher tax bills. I have worked in financial services for the past ten years and have done many financial plans for wealthy people and I can tell you that the hired help will definately be the ones to pay for the higher tax rates. Not only them, but charitible giving also. Some wealthy people have charitible inclinations & some have none. The ones that are generous are usually VERY generous. It will definately have an effect on philanthropy that will not be good. Many a foundation will see reduced funding and colleges may see reduced donations. The provisions in our tax code that permit wealthy individuals to establish charitable trusts and foundations have done enormous good for our communities and less fortunate citizens. Much of this could be destroyed by class warfare and envy. Liberals are fools to think that government is the greatest force for good in our society and that taxes are the way to fund it. I gave 22 years of my life protecting our citizens right to stupidity & a short attention span on matters of governance. I can assure you that government bureaucrats genuinely believe that they know how to spend your monry better than you do and the answer to any social problem is always more money.

Patrick49| 10.18.08 @ 10:21PM

Obama's promise to reduce the income tax of 95% of the wage earners is completely false since the following shows that top 50% of all wage earners pay 97% of all federal income taxes. What Obama calls "a tax reduction for the middle class" is in reality welfare payments to approximaely 50% of wage earners under the guise of tax credits.

In 2006 the median annual income according to the US Census Bureau was determined to be $48,201.00. The fact is only the wealthy pay income taxes,ie,the top 1% of income earners pay 39% of all federal income taxes, the top 25% of income earners pay 86% and the top 50% pay 97% of all federal income taxes.That means that the lowest 50% of income earners, which includes all wage earners making the median wage and below pay only 3% of federal income tax revenues while most actually receive checks from the government, welfare payments disguised as earned income tax credits, children's tax credits as well as packages of federally funded programs, too many to list here but include Medicaid and children's health care. This is simply another attempt to to instigate class envy and push a socialist agenda by 'phony" math.

Rik| 10.19.08 @ 2:27AM

I am a health professional and many of my colleagues will agree that expanding any form of welfare rather than reforming it at our expense is absolutely criminal. There are so many individuals who are on welfare that can afford not to be, I see it day in and day out in my profession. I already pay close to 25K a year in fed taxes and only end up getting back 500 to 700$, is it fair that I did all of the work to get to where I am today via scholarships and loans and then have to pay more so that someone who hasn't done anything or who abuses the system can get a bigger hand out?

Carter | 10.19.08 @ 3:25AM

DOES AN OBAMA PRESIDENCY SCARE YOU? THEN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! “EVIL PREVAILS WHEN GOOD MEN DO NOTHING!!” …Edmund Burke Obama must be stopped. But the McCain Campaign's not going to do it. It's really up to the people to step up to the plate, and influence a few votes! McCain Can Still Win! But there has to be an organized plan among his supporters, in addition to the McCain campaign, Check out this website. It's an easy way we can all make a difference in this election. http://www.theobamacure.com/

Lidia| 10.19.08 @ 7:51AM

So, I'm greedy because I work my tail off and don't want to share my earnings with some "Joe" who is sitting in front of his tv eating twinkies? OK then, I'm greedy!! I don't want to share my wealth with someone when I am the one working 15 hour days to better my life! Make your own money lazy bitches!! How about you lazies helping me pay for my $75,000 tuition bill?

Grissie,| 10.19.08 @ 12:06PM

As a Race horse trainer I personally have a huge problem with wealth redistribution. Under the "Rock Star Presidential Messiah" syndrome my stable will be cut drastically. I own this stable, these are my horses, I will be immediately propelled into the a tax bracket that will require me to cut back in numbers. Therefore three grooms (horse caretakers) will join the ranks of the unemployed without Healthcare, which they now enjoy. I started out with three head made a good living, can certainly go right back there. Doing all the required labor, be done with it. Another Small Business down the drain. I will not become punished by a Marxist Community Organizer for being successful. This man came from obscurity to a presidential candidate , with the support of people I do not agree with, including Pelosi, Reid, Franks, Shumer, Dodd, and all the rest of the Tax and Spend do nothing bevy of fools on the Hill.

Deb| 10.19.08 @ 12:09PM

RIGHT ON LIDIA!! I am a small business owner and it makes my blood boil when the people collecting welfare are those with a brand new Cadillac Escalade sitting in the driveway, new ipods, brand new shoes and designer handbags. I'm sick and tired of the "poor me" lazy people in this country. Why in the hell should I have to pay for the lavish lifestyle of those who choose to take advantage of the system?? This is an outrage and Obama is an enabler.

T Jones| 10.19.08 @ 1:45PM

Where I grew up poor (single widowed mother in the sixties) if we took something from someone else it was called theft, not taxation. Why don't we go to flat taxes so everyone pays a fair percentage of income, we could cut the IRS tremendously, and get rid of loopholes for corporate presidents. I think the people in charge of Freddie and Fannie should be in jail. The other problem is Americans don't see a problem with spending what they don't have, buying with credit, on a personal and governmental level.

DS80| 10.19.08 @ 3:39PM

To Dima Iva: "I am from Canada and would like to find out what’s wrong with helping other, less fortunate people? "

(1) Nothing, if I choose to do it of my own free will. (2) Everything, if the government forces me to do it.

If I (me, myself, **I**) EARN, due to my own hard work and ingenuity and good decisions, more than $250,000, why should I be forced to give it away?

Please stay in Canada. We don't need your kind of thinking here in the USA.

Ken Roberts | 10.19.08 @ 6:18PM

I would think if they just put that all interest paid no matter to who was tax deductible as it used to be, that would be a quick tax relief for all . Credit card debt should be tax deductible and then we would have a fair shake out of Washington at last. the car financing would be tax deductible there by increasing sales and boosting the economy .

Ken Roberts| 10.19.08 @ 6:36PM

to Joe E: Is your name really Joe or is that your middle name , just wanted that clarified . I feel your pain I have a son who worked his way through a school at AT&T;just so he could make 35,000 a year and hope for advancement on a yearly basis he owes about 40,000 and he pays for this a I think 300 .00 a month . Doctors are looked upon as money mongers in today's society and I wondered why any one would want to be a doctor,I guess it must be the compassion of caring for people and finding a cure for something that is killing one of their patients . I applaud you sir you are the top of the crust to embargo yourself to the point of poverty to heal the sick , My hat is off to people like you sir.

Jordan| 10.20.08 @ 2:15AM

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to determine that Obama is deceiving a great many people with his promises of "gifts" to the middle class. Beware greeks bearing gifts, I say. The figures just don't add up. It's one thing to make a mistake in budget analysis, but another entirely to wilfully deceive people.

With our present debt load, he will have to raise taxes dramatically jsy to support his new economical plan, not only among the rich, but with every aspect of peoples income. Obama is one slick con artist, and he is buying the white house, but most think that they are trading thier individual freedoms in adopting a socialistic form of government, in exchange for a few crumbs he will throw your way. How pathetic!

Jordan| 10.20.08 @ 2:31AM

It is very disconcerting to see so many people deceived by a political machinery that has manipulated voter registration through Acorn, which Obama paid over $833 K dolalrs, and we now find Acorn under federal investigation for wide spread voter fraus.

But many people think that he is going to look out for them, while in truth, he is looking out for himself. How can so man be so blind to what this man truly represents to this nation.

Abridgement of freedom of speech Bigger and more pervasive government controls Higher taxes for everyone Redesign of the Am flag and national anthem Disarmament during this very dangerous time Declared afinity for his Islam bretheren (quote) A fool hardy economic policy, doomed to fail Nationalizition of our financial institutions Conversion from a capitalist society to socialism

In no time at all, we will be just numbers working for the "state", no upward mobility, no reduction of tax burdens, even you homes will no longer be yours, for eventually, the government will own us, lock, stock, and barrell.

PL| 10.20.08 @ 4:28AM

Grissie, can you please explain how you will be propelled into another tax bracket and forced to lay people off?

I find it amazing/disheartening that in each argument against "welfare" the stereotype of the lazy-twinkie-Cadillac-driving-shop-crazy recipient is played. Nothing more. People who work in ghettos and with inner city know that the stereotype is false. Of course, buying into said stereotype would prevent many from venturing into the places where they could learn how the majority of those people unfortunate enough to be at the poverty level live. It's much easier to believe that they are taking advantage and it's all their own fault and I'm the victim. Wouldn't want to look deeper. And sure wouldn't want to help even when it is shown that doing so improves society as a whole.

The plans of the candidates have been reviewed by nonpartisan groups and show that Obama's will leave us with less debt. They show that McCain's health care plan will cost 5 times more than Obama's per person and that Obama's will cover 7 times the amount of people.

But hey, who cares right? If people wanted coverage they would go work an extra full time min. wage job to get it, right? They'd find someone to watch the kids. Or leave them alone. (But then they'd be lambasted for that irresponsible behavior.) They could go to school to get a better job, but then how would they pay? (Grants for single parents paying for 1 class in my area at this time.) Who would watch the kids for the 4 or so years it takes to get the 2 year degree? What if they have no family? Know any daycares that watch kids at night? Hmm, well, they could go during the day and work at night...oh, wait, same problem. Weekends? Hmm. Well, what about internet? But what are the poor people doing with computers?! (It couldn't be that they saved to buy them, could it? I mean, them, save? They are poor; they don't know how to save!)

People who have more knowledge of stereotype than down and dirty reality - as in seeing with your own eyes the in and out of daily life for an extended period of time of the people as a group - have no place passing judgement. It's pure ignorance.

Tom| 10.20.08 @ 11:32AM

Everyone is caught up in the ECONOMIC battle like that is the only thing at stake here. What about the LIBERAL judges that will be appointed. That scares me as much as anything. People who live their lives on the MAINSTREAM MEDIA, don't have a clue on reality. Simply because they only report things that fit in their agenda. They are not too concerned about the truth. Too many people in this country run around spouting off things they hear as gospel. We have become a nation that refuses to think for ourselves. My father was like that, didn't matter who was running, he would vote DEMOCRAT. Hated anyone who was Republican. That is not a healthy attitude. Sen. Obama has spent too much time trying to tie McCain to BUSH, but, when people try to tie him to the shady people of his past, he gets defensive. When Joe the "plumber", exposed his TAX plan for what it really is, the DEMS first response was to shift the attention to the fact that Joe wasn't a real plumber, or that he owed back taxes. I don't care about that, he will have to deal with the IRS on that issue. The fact is that Obama needed to shift the attention away from his "spread the wealth" plan. That is the way Obama has done his whole political career. The first political office he obtained, he had a team of lawyers search and find loopholes to get his opponents disqualified, which gave him a win by default. When Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate, he sent a team of lawyers to Alaska to try and dig up dirt to disqualify her. Do you think that this "Trooper" thing would have ever hit national media had she not been chosen for VP. If people would dig into Obama's past, they would find plenty to be concerned about. But, then you would probably be labeled a racist.

Heather Kensington| 10.20.08 @ 12:11PM

I am a small business owner not making the $250m in profit yet. How can any small business keep growing and possibility hire employees knowing you will only be taxed harder when you reach this level. Obama will kill any small business growth. And no, I do not want my wealth spread around. As far as the 95% of Americans getting a tax credit I do not agree to keep handing out checks to those who don't want to work. Obama wants the college students who receive a $4m government grant to do community service and such, why not the welfare people. They receive free money, medical care and food stamps. How do you get people off the free welfare system, "job creation". In reality we do not need the illegals in this country. There are 40 million Americans collecting welfare that can do those jobs that the illegals are doing. I don't mind helping those in need but the ones that take from the system year after year has to stop. There won't be middle class in this country if the dems keep running things. God help us all!

PhilipscousinChris| 10.20.08 @ 2:24PM

There won't be a middle class in this country if MAINSTREAM politicians keep running things. The federales borrowed and spent themselves into oblivion from the illegal Fed, and let Fannie and Freddie buy off the legislation that would've better overseen the activities that lead to their, and others', failure. Most state citizens aren't even obligated to pay federal income taxes anyway (givemeliberty.org, 60 page ebook). So, this is just empty rhetoric to try and dupe the people that do still pay into voting for his side of the CFR/Trilateral Commission/Bilderburg family. Democrat/Republican - almost all the same, chosen from the same CFR/Tri Lateral pot. We need to quit voting mainstream, it's bringing the country down. There will be about 6 or more candidates for Pres on your state's ballot this year. Do some Googlin. “The abuse of buying and selling votes crept in and money began to play an important part in determining elections. Later on, this process of corruption spread to the law courts. And then to the army, and finally the Republic was subjected to the rule of emperors” --Plutarch - Historian of the Roman Republic "Lucky for rulers that men do not think." -Adolf Hitler church-of-Christ.org

Noor| 10.21.08 @ 9:53AM

I truly cannot believe how uninformed many people are of the tax system and I cannot believe that the WSJ is capitalizing on it. So let me clear this for everyone: EVERY WORKER PAYS TAXES. ABSOLUTELY EVERY WORKER, when they receive their salary checks has a PAYROLL TAX DEDUCTION. So all year long, people go and pay their taxes religiously. Now at the end of the tax season, when you have to file your income tax, you might have zero-income tax liability. This means that you don't OWE the government further taxes because you paid them ALL thorugh your payroll discount. Sometimes peopel get a refund because they paid more taxes on payroll than they owe. Now under Obama, the ONLY people could have a negative tax rate (i.e. receive money from the governmet) are the people who earn less than $10,000. And anyone who thinks it's wrong to help out a little (the net tax ret would be -2.8%) hard working people who makes less than $10,000 has little sense of solidarity. Here is the table from the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan analysis group confirming what I just said: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1967&DocTypeID=1 SHAME on the WSJ for doing such an irresponsible article

DINA| 10.21.08 @ 11:04AM

Quote from Charles Barkley: "Poor people have been voting Democratic for 50 years and they're still poor."

ddddd| 10.21.08 @ 2:26PM

Don from VA- You say that those with nothing are ignorant or lazy. You obviously don't know anything about people in this country other than your little circle of the world. Granted there is a proportion of people out there that are ignorant or lazy or both. Not everyone is lazy or ignorant that do not have anything or who are struggling. I too have struggled through college.... and am currently in graduate school struggling to make it through. I have nothing but student loan debt right now. When I was a freshman in college tuition was $1800. Shortly before I graduated last year tuition was approximately $3700. (thank you conservatives that were in the house and senate for the first 6 years of the Bush presidency, can I send you a bill for the difference in tuition?.... ***note the sarcasm***) This is obviously not including room and board expenses or medical expenses. Yes thats right medical expenses... I do not live above my means whatsoever because I know that if I did I would never see another classroom and therefore never make myself better due to the medical expenses. Due to my medical issues I cannot work as much as the normal college student does either and I have to pick and choose which jobs I can do. I cannot do physical labor whatsoever and even my job now hurts my legs and back after a couple hours. I worked throughout my undergraduate career, sometimes 2 and 3 jobs at a time and if you can still call me lazy still you have a lot of nerve!

Now I do think that if you are irresponsible that you do not deserve government handouts. However the welfare system was originally designed to get struggling people back on their feet. The thing I would be in favor of would be stricter guidelines on the system so that those who really deserve it get it and those who don't cannot. That way they can pour more money into the education system. If the rich hoard their money or spend it on useless things it does not go towards the greater good of man.
Many of the posts on here use the word socialism as if its a bad thing. Obama's plan is not socialist in the purest sense of the word..... However a certain degree of controlled socialism is necessary in my opinion to get people who are sincerely trying to get themselves out of a rut back on their feet.
Lowering taxes to the point of not being able to fund anything but the wars is not the answer and lowering taxes on the rich is definitely not the answer. Taxing already existing employer health benefits will only hurt the businessowner and hurt the employee if the businessowner can no longer afford to supply health insurance. I see nothing in Mccain's plans that would help me or the average American out there. The average American is not on their high horse and is not trying to protect their money. The average American is trying to get just a little bit of income so that they don't owe people money for basic human decent things such as food, water, health care, education and shelter.
I am not expecting to be rich, especially with the amount of money I will be spending in the future on medical expenses with my conditions. I simply want to wake up in the morning and know that despite everything unfortunate that has happened to me that I will be able to live an ok life and pay my bills. These are some of the reasons why I will vote for Obama and have been encouraging friends and family to do the same. Taxes are not the end of the world people, especially when that money goes to our future and getting everyone to contribute to the greater good of mankind. Imagine what the world would be like if the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich were both contributing to society in positive ways with a strong middle class. Right now neither the poor nor the rich are doing that and the middle class is struggling. This is part of the whole problem which needs to be fixed.

Blasian| 10.21.08 @ 6:06PM

True people abuse State Programs aka Welfare. People go to school and lie weekly to the unemployment automated phone system. Lie that they are looking for work.

But cutting those programs will affect those who really need assistance. Perhaps more strict controls should be implemented to verify people applying for state/federal assistance really need it.

Sure people may be wearing "Baby Phat" or new Nike shoes while waiting for assistance with their Electricty Bill however there is no doubt they are NOT Shopping at SAKS 5th Ave or Nordstorms. You may not know this but you can buy "Baby Phat", Tommy Hilfiger and other "designer brands" for cheap at TJ Max, Marshalls, and/or ROSS.

Another note about these "Baby Phat" people with Cell phones. When you dont own a VEHICLE, what do you have that gives you some individuality? How can someone who cant afford a Cadillac Escalade with Chrome Wheels can show your sense of style? Clothes of course. Why do low income people with "urban" style CREASE their pants? Why do they take great care of their clothes? Because they cant afford a vehicle.

Cell phones have replaced Land Lines so when you see a "poor person" using a Cell Phone dont assume they are closet manipulators of the Welfare System.

In regards to Tax dollars. Did you know that NOAA (branch of U.S. Dept of Commerce) has 100 biologists in a Building here in Oregon? Their mission is to save Salmon and Steelhead.

Federal and State Gov'ts must address and regulate industries people havent the slightest idea about. We elect people to handle the thousands if not millions of issues that makeup our economy so so unless you want to do it yourself, vote.

As a local grassroots newspaper here in Oregon states (Willamette Week)... Governing is a B----.

Jim| 10.21.08 @ 10:47PM

This is to NOOR:

I think you're off:
If your income tax liability is 0, then after your tax credits, the money you will have paid the government is 0 (ie. maybe I paid at the 10% rate, in addition to FICA, but with the EITC, child credits, etc, you get refunded the amount you paid in INCOME tax).
Which is why 29% of filers (equal to 40% of Americans) pay no income tax. yes, payroll tax includes FICA, but it defeats the purpose of Social Security if everyone got that money back.

Am I wrong on this?

Grissie| 10.23.08 @ 10:44AM

PL:
You asked me to explain what I meant by propelled into another tax bracket concerning my race horse stable, small business.
According to the source www.barackobama.com and IRS Statistics Income Bulletin. Under a President Obama the tax rate on the majority of small businesses could reach as high as 54.9%. How did they get there ? The rate will jump from 35% to a possible 39.6. Social Security/Medicare Tax could very well climb from 2.9% to 15.3. a staggering 54.9% after the math. Projected to be the highest rate since Carter and double digit inflation. The key word here is projection. No one truly knows what exactly will happen because of campaign rhetoric.

I built this business WITHOUT the first loan. I bought my first horse many years ago with CASH from my own savings. He was an older racing cast off, actually headed for the kill pen. I put him back together, classified him and went on a money making tare. I retired him when it was evident he was in pain and to old to try to rehab one more time. He lived out his life with 4 other horses on a retirement farm which I funded with a portion of his earnings. He was my rock and I've never forgot that. He built my stable. I have never lived above my means. Never have I used a credit card in my business. I have in NO WAY contributed to this financial crisis by irresponsible spending. I pay my fair share now, I employ 3 people, provide health care for my paltry 3 employees. Under the current economic climate purse money has already been cut by 26%. Hay, grain, bedding, equipment, veternarian costs, fuel to haul to the tracks to race have skyrocketed. Farm charges for rest and recoup on horses recovering from fatigue or injury have doubled fron $8.00 per day to $16.00 per day in less than 2 years. The last thing I need is the possibility of a socialist minded president yapping Wealth Redistribution. Too risky from where I sit. His phantom political background is more than questionable. If his presidency comes to fruition I may be forced to return to the voices of 3 or 4 happy faces and comical personalities when I open the barn door. It would not only be financial suicide to attempt to maintain a 15 horse stable but an injustice to my employees but a grave misjustice to the animals bringing in the bacon due to reduced amounts of cash I can spend on there health care. You cannot successfully race a horse short on care from financial woes. So numbers are automatically reduced. If thats not destroying a small business then I don't know what is.

Mike Alexander| 10.26.08 @ 9:22PM

This discussion shows why McCain is doing so poorly. For working class people, "taxes" are FICA and Federal Income Taxes (FIT) combined. Both are taken out of their check and even if all the FIT is refunded they still see themselves as taxpayers. Obama's plan will give these folks a bigger refund, and as far as they are concerned, that is a tax cut. Arguing over syntax isn't going to get you anywhere, those you agree with you are already voting for McCain and that is obviously not enough, if you look at the polls.

Ditto for bellyaching about how Obama's tax increases are going to hurt individuals making more than $250K. I make $150K, Obama's plan isn't going to affect me and there are three times more voters in the ~$150K neighborhood than there are in the >$250K category.

Now its absolutely true that if my income were to double ina given year (which has actually happened in the last decade) then I would pay taxes equal to ~33% of the increased income--about the same marginal rate I paid twenty years ago when Reagan was president. I lived through it then, and certainly can manage now--and that's only if I see a big increase in my income, which in this economy is hardly likely.

So that is the extent of the scary Obama tax plan for folks like me. On the plus side there is the Obama health plan.

I work for a major drug company and we have an excellent health plan, for which we pay about $2000/yr. Under Obama's plan nothing happens to my plan.

However, I could be downsized in the next few years. When I started 20 years ago, there were 8000 of us. Now there are 2500 left, and a couple hundred get let go every year or two. It's only a matter of time before we are all gone.

If I get unlucky and get laid off, I would have to buy a shitty health insurance planto replace my excellent group plan because I would not belong to a group anymore. With Obama's plan I have the option to purchase group insurance. This is a plus to me.

The McCain plain sucks for people like me. McCain will make me pay taxes on my company-provided insurance--my taxes will go up by ~$4000, maybe more. McCain's plan will give $5000 to my insurance company to help pay for the insurance. But I don't *have* an insurance company, my *employer* does. Presumably, the $5000 payment to my enployer's insurance company will result in lower premiums for the company and they will probably stop charging me any premium at all. So I save $2o00 in co-pay and pay $4000 more in taxes. I end up $2000 in the hole. Other people like me who work for big corporations and who get good benefits will be in the same boat. We lose on this deal.

Self-employed will get $5000 for health insurance; they clearly win.

So it looks like employees of big companies with good benefits will be footing the bill for the self employed. In other words, McCain also plans a re-distribution of the wealth except he eyes people like me as the sheep to be shorn. Obama, on the other hand, leaves me alone and goes after folks in the >250K catergory instead.

McCain plans to shear a lot more voters than Obama and that is just plain bad politics.

Josh Koziol| 10.27.08 @ 11:30PM

I want to let people know that i am a 17 yr old who grew up in complete poverty.
I have lived in a family setting with many people under a $30,000 annual income (and this has fluctuated as low as 15,000 and as high as 34,000). I grew up in the "ghetto" and i completely understand the mindset of the lower class.

THE LAST THING THEY NEED IS A HANDOUT!!!!!!!!!!

I am incredibly serious about that. There is a sad aura of entitlement within this environment. They feel it's their right to more money and that the government should give it to them.

Some of you think it will help them and encourage them to become successful, but it won't. this will only encourage more laziness and a bigger sense of entitlement.

These people really don't care whats going on in this country. They really don't care about working hard or going to school. If you give them something they don't work for, it just gives them more incentive to be lazy. They only care about themselves.

A great personal example of this is my mother. She had me put into foster care because she put my dad in jail (not for a very large amount of time). The last time i had seen her was in the court house where she had asked me, "Why are you angry?" and she was doing this because of her sense of entitlement. That she had the RIGHT to more money. It ended up that my dad didn't owe her any money at all. But the point is she didn't even care about her children because of her excessive greed and self-centered beliefs. She saw nothing wrong with me going into foster care and not into her custody because she wanted money.

I also have been on title 19 for a long period of time and government health care DOES NOT WORK. Unless you have a simple cold or need simple generic drugs, this system fails. These types of health care plans hurt our economy. Doctors are reluctant to take patients with title-19 because they lose money. They don't want to give these people the same treatment because they don't get paid for doing it.

I also can't stand hearing the argument about people not having the same opportunities because that's complete bull.

I'm completely serious about my future. I get pains watching people say they understand or know how to fix things better than i do because I'm young. But i understand it from a very personal level. I am very honest and logical with my explanations, and if you would like to hear or discuss anything politically I am very open to do so.

Oh, and these people absolutely abuse welfare and government programs. They try to get as much money as possible without having to work for it...

You can contact me here or even on my cell: 414-430-7615

Lindsey| 10.28.08 @ 7:25PM

I am a sophomore in college, and come from an upper class family. With knowing this many people would assume that my being "blessed with wealthy parents" is the reason that I back McCain; that possibly I am only following the beliefs of my parents, and that I have never experienced poverty. Well let me tell you something, yes my parents have money, but NO I do not. My dad is a single parent who worked endless hours to create his wealth he has today. He came from nothing, and earned the money he has through hard work and sacrifice. So when deciding how he would raise his SIX children, he decided that he wanted to instill the knowledge and work concept he learned by having to make it on his own. I pay for school ON MY OWN, that means NO help, not from the government who sees my fathers income and believes that he's capable of taking care of me, and not from my father who has the money (and honestly even if he did help me, he wouldn't be able to make that much of a dent with five other brothers and sisters in college and grad school. I am a full time student who is going to school, I worked 60 + hours a week in the summer to earn money for school, I pay for my gas, for my car, for my food, my phone and my every day necessities. I have had sleepless nights wondering how I am going to pay for this education, so I do understand living in poverty and working my butt off, but will any of Obama's money go to people like me? NO. Obama's plan for higher education will only give my parents more money, through my possible 4 thousand dollars being given to them in a tax relief and make it EVEN harder for me to possibly get the financial aid I so badly need. It will cause the businesses that pull in large amounts of money to loose money, which will make them either a) increase the prices of their products b) downsize their companies more or c) carry more businesses overseas to cheaper more economical productive countries. So great, Obama is going to give people who make little to nothing more money. You want to know what else he will increase? Inflation, unemployment, the debt of our country, and the amount of Americans on welfare. All I have to say to that is, I hope those who receive this money have a great first few month with Obama, because with these plans our country has a steep slippery slope to an economy so bad there is no return. What we need is to create jobs, and the amount of revenue coming in, which McCain has a plan that will work and allow for CHANGE to come, and put the heartbeat back in America. I am not an immature, inexperienced and uneducated voter. I came into this election as an independent, and through my own research I have found the truth. The truth is, that behind Obama's great speeches and appealing words (CHANGE), his plans have no substance and no long term foresight, just quick fixes in the issues that really need to be addressed IMMEDIATELY.

Denied Benefits from Food Bank| 10.29.08 @ 2:29PM

On July 14th, 2007 HR-1851 Maxine Waters-D-CA's Bill went into Law.
When this happened, Section 8 Choice Mobility Housing/Homeownership Voucher Funding Act of 2007 went into FULL effect!
Into the Far-Northern California they came. From all the inner-cities in Southern California, car after car, U Haul after U Haul. Like the Shasta Dam had broke flooding in!
Around August after the Bill was if full bore action, some of these lovely inner-city folks had moved all around me.
They were very happy Entitlement recipients indeed. Not much to do all day or all night long but watch soap operas, smoke crypto, crank, drink MD-20/20, Colt 45, Slitz Malt, and just 'hang out'.
I suppose that's why these lovely people, from the inner-city decided to 'Torch' my area of the world. Nutin' ta' do...Well, my home was burned to the ground, and I could not get back in for 4 days, to see, Well, soot and ashes.
I work, at a pretty good job. I work very hard, and like to sleep because I'm pretty exhausted, but those Boom Boxes just keep on pounding out the Rap and Hip Hop, regardless of the time.
Nutin' ta' do.
While I was not able to get back to my pile of ashes, I needed some food, as I had run out of money staying in a Motel each night.
So, I decided to go to the local Mission/Food Bank and Apply for 1 time assistance.
I filled out the form and waited joyfully as I saw alot of the neighborhood of folks that had come in from the inner-cities, taking many bags and boxes of free food, so I was getting more and more hungary and excited as the clock ticked!
I was turned down. "sorry, you just make a little too much Gross pay per year". WHAT?!? I asked how much is too much? Well, it was almost $300 too much for a family of 5 with 3 children. Nope! I was NOT ENTITLED for NUTIN'. There was a tray with loaves and loaves of bread. I asked, "May I at least have some bread, we are getting really hungry", "I'm sorry that's for the low-income qualified applicants ONLY!" "OK, thank you anyway" "UUmmm Humm".
I grabbed a loaf of bread, and ran out like a wildwoman! These Security type guys chased me all the way down the block where I had my car parked down the street near a Thrift Store.
I ran into the Thrift Store, and acted like a very harried shopper, hiding within the clothing racks!
Whhooww!
We did eat the bread for our dinner that night, and is was really good, because we were really starving.
So, if you make over $22,000 a year Gross pay, I can assure you, you will pay the taxes to feed people, but you will NEVER qualify for any help, if and when you might need it.
Obama is only out to help his 'people' that are percentage wise undisputably on Entitlements for life..Don't try and say otherwise, I live among them, I know they DO NOT WANT TO WORK.
You cannot fool someone that knows these people, lives among them, pays them to sit around, and 'hang out'.
He will tax the heck out of you, and BLOAT Entitlements to the point of Emplosion!
That will bring on a Great Depression #2.
It will happen. It matters not what or who he taxes, not what War he stops or Starts for Israel, he will burden the American people that do not live off Entitlements to collapse, and the End of Entitlements will come, and I will be happy about that!

Denied Benefits from Food Bank| 10.29.08 @ 2:44PM

Oh, and what happened to the 'Torcher' that burned down half my neighborhood?
He did less than a year. He's back home with his Grandmaw, he just bought a Chevy Suburban, and put Spinner Rims on it.
I did get a replacement home, with my small insurance policy, it's a manufactured home though, not the original lovely older home I bought.
Oh, and the young inner-city fellow that 'Torched' my neighborhood, he Applied and Qualified for SSI-supplemental security income.
Pay's not a penny of taxes. Get's $888 a month from California, Federal & State pays here to SSI's.
And, he's getting a raise from the Demogrants starting Janurary 1st, 2009.
He also get's all his Medical free thru, MediCal, same as MediCaid.
He's gotten his teeth capped with very expensive Di Vinci's.
He has nice perscription dark glasses to match the paint job on his Suburban.
He and his Grandmaw just got brand new windows, a new heating and air conditioning central system installed, all from the gracious taxpayers of California's, low-income heating and air conditioning assistance program.
Oh, and they just got a check from the State, for their property taxes, 95% of their property taxes were given back to them, in a nice State check.
Even though this young fellow never finished high school, he did get a lovely $250 clothing voucher in late August and only really wanted one item, the designer basketball leather tennis shoes, and he was quite unhappy he could not get clothing along with the shoes to match with the designer shoes. Guess Obama's right, we all need to give him more money from our taxes.
He's going to go to college completely free on a Grant, that all the low-incomes recieve, that's if he get's his GED, but he does have trouble getting up before 2 in the afternoon.
He said that the Food Bank is finally wakin' up and provides his type of folks foods now, sheesh, they made him wait for the type of foods he prefers imagine that..
It's really nice for him, just trades his EBT food stamp card to someone that wants the food, and that way he does not have to steal from anyone to get more Crank, and just goes to the Food Banks every week and comes back with tons of foods.
Well, guess I should be more thankful.
Thankful that Obama has not asked me to carry his 350lb., Grandmaw on my back to the Food Bank!

Anonymous| 10.30.08 @ 2:42PM

You idiots realize that McCain's tax plan increases the national debt by even MORE than Obama's right? Obama's plan will increase the national debt by around 3.3 trillion, whereas McCain's tax plan increases the national debt by around 5 trillion.

Grissie| 11.2.08 @ 7:11AM

Hey Anonymous, it is obvious your just slightly out of the loop. I suggest you do a little more study on Economic growth. Or better yet stop watching MSNBC, your misinformed.
I run a small business, Obamas non-sense, fringed with his Marxist rhetoric will do nothing but discourage my business growth. My accountant and I have already had this conversation. I'm looking to bail to a smaller business. I refuse to be hampered in anyway by "Redistributing My Wealth". Obama can take his Socialism and stick it right squarely where he sits. I'm still praying it won't be in the Oval office chair.

nannasc| 11.2.08 @ 11:32AM

Charitible giving will be the real loss under Obama's plan - as the top income brackets, including businesses generally are very generous to others. But when their taxes increase, they will be forced to make very difficult cuts - jobs, advertising, charitable donations, increases to insurance deductions for employees, higher prices for their goods, etc. . . . As an accountant in a larger organization, I can assure you that this is already happening in this bad economic downturn. It will be much worse.
So, in the end even if the lower tier do receive decreases in taxes, they will be by far offset to the increases that will be made.

Tami| 11.2.08 @ 12:30PM

The line Obama delivered that he is going to "fundamentally change the United States of America" has chilled me to the bone.

He hates people who speak against him and will destroy anyone who does.
He believes that non-working people are entitled to our money and the ones who have worked hard to get money are selfish.
He wants to start a "civilian military" what the hell does that mean??
He will abolish the illegal immigration laws, marriage laws and the constitution.
American has no "culture"' as in India, China, or Russia...America was created by ideas. Obama seeks to destroy these ideas and turn our country into a hard core socialist country where we have no say, no differing opinion, no choice. For the life of me I can't figure out why so many people want this in their life. The only reason I can think of that they're voting for this radical is that he has a "D" after his name. They are sheep going to the slaughter and want to take the rest of us along. I've always said "civil war - a little house cleaning never hurt anyone" and I'm afraid this is what it will come down too. So vote your lives away but remember to stock up on illegal hand guns because Obama will be coming for all your worldly possessions soon and leave you defenseless against the evil that is going to invade our serene lives. This man is a frightening as Hitler.

EmilyK| 11.4.08 @ 9:47AM

I just have one question. When is the government going to stop bailing people out that have made bad choices and are now suffering the consequences? From the richest CEO of a lending company to the poorest person who can't seem to stop having babies even though they can't afford to care for them, when is the government going to stop? Under Obama, the worse your choices have been in life, the more you're going to be rewarded. However, if you've been smart, worked hard and earned your money, you're just a selfish whitey, and they're going take even more than the 33% they're taking right now. WOW, that will inspire initiative. What the hell are people thinking?

Evan| 11.4.08 @ 9:11PM

Tami: It is ture. Obama is a very freightning man. i am only 15 and i live in dallas texas in an extremely conservative neighborhood. My school however had a mock election and Obama won 59%-41%. I ask many of my absent minded friends what Obama's foreign policy is or what his economic plan is. They stare at me dumbfounded. The kids now-a-days are being brain washed into voting for Obama. Also on the citizen military topic. Hitler actually also had the idea of a civilian military but really it was more of a bunch of thugs. In Nazi Germany they were formally called "browncoats"... Things are not looking good.

Evan| 11.4.08 @ 9:54PM

*brown shirts*

Suz| 2.1.09 @ 10:14AM

To: JoBu| 10.17.08 @ 3:45PM (and others)

Jesus never once FORCED anyone to give nor did he take from one to give to another! He asked for people to sell or give. Why? because he knew that only by giving from the heart without any see-able reward would you receive grace from God. He also knew that FORCE causes resentment and rebellion which lead to hate, not love.

When you take away someone's ability to CHOOSE to do good you take away their chance to redeem themselves and/or to learn very important lessons. You cause resentment, rebellion, and hate. You actually go against God's will... for us to LEARN how to and why to be "good".

"free will"/"free choice" which ever term you choose to use... we always have the choice to do good or not and learn something in return until we let someone who thinks they know better force us to do it.

Jesus was also against interest and taxes. When he was asked about taxes they sought to "trick" him in front of the kings men... how could they think they could trick him unless they already knew he was against taxes? so instead, because he knew what they were up to, he asks to see the money then asks whose image was it made in. The man says Caesar's and Jesus replies "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but render unto God what is God's"... What was/is made in God's image? (hint: it's in Genesis) Jesus was making a point, not approving taxes.

Our rights of Life, Liberty, and Property in which lies our pursuit of happiness, come from our basic needs of food, clothing, shelter and the protection/defense of it all.

The US government was instituted to protect those rights as the Declaration of Independence affirms.

Equality from government in it's proper usage means giving everyone the OPPORTUNITY to succeed NOT A GUARANTEE of success.

Perhaps if we still educated for liberty instead of forcing doctrines, social values, etc. down kids throats via the current Compulsory Indoctrination system more people would realize how and why collectivism/socialism etc. can't and has never worked.

Everything starts with the individual and then works outward according to time, energy, and values etc. of the individual.

bob| 7.25.09 @ 7:50AM

I liked all the tips offered. But personally I find them not complete enough to help a person modify his page content. If you really want to perfectly know the ABCs of webdesign, you can find some books here: http://www.picktorrent.com. Read them precisely and then get back to managing your blog content. Believe me, Netcipia is worth it!

nike air max| 7.28.09 @ 1:49AM

thank you,,,,,,,,,

Tiffany Jewelry| 8.30.09 @ 8:51PM

href="http://www.edhardyuk.co.uk">Ed Hardy Clothing, Ed Hardy Jeans from

href="http://www.abercrombieshop.us/">abercrombie and fitch

Tiffany| 8.30.09 @ 8:52PM

Ed Hardy Clothing, Ed Hardy Jeans from abercrombie and fitch.