McCain's lower taxes policy or Obama's handout program?

George,

You take 9 paragraphs to outline one policy point. Your headline mentions, McCain's "lower taxes," but fails to answer, for whom? Your headline mentions Obama's "handouts." What handouts? Tax cuts for the bottom 95% of the income distribution?

9-02-2008 @ 12:13PM

chris said...
Agreed- these 'pundits' have the power to influence and its a shame they are so damned stupid by misleading with their own twisted thoughts.


George,

You take 9 paragraphs to outline one policy point. Your headline mentions, McCain's "lower taxes," but fails to answer, for whom? Your headline mentions Obama's "handouts." What handouts? Tax cuts for the bottom 95% of the income distribution?

One thing is clear. McCain favors the Bush tax cuts, which benefit the top 5% of wage earners. We know that "trickle down" doesn't work.

Obama, on the other hand, wants to implement the reverse of the Bush cuts, raising taxes on the top 5% and lowering them for everyone else.

Someone who earns ~$3million per year pays an additional $700,000 in taxes. I don't see too many people shedding tears for someone who has to live on a measly $2.3 million.

Although Obama may not like it, the USA is still a capitalist nation. Therefore, putting capital into productive uses - commercial/industrial engines, rather than government and social spending - the overall result will benefit the nation as a whole. That includes 100% of us, not just his so called 95%. Enough dividing into us and them - we are all part of the same country - rich and poor. Oil companies and oil consumers each need the other to succeed.

It never seems to amaze me why people think that because someone earns more money then the average person that person should have to have more tax burdens. I am sure if more people got off the bandwagon and started working towards their own future stability they wouldnt want such tax burdens put on themselves. Why should someone have to suffer more because of hard work good planning or even good luck. Quit riding on the coat tails of others and earn your own living. We have become a society of handouts and that is why we are getting our buts kick through out business in the world.

You left out what most of that extra tax money from the companies will go to-----the ceo.

'WHAT DO YOU WANT FOR YOUR BIRTHDAY, MARGO ?'......A DIVORCE....'.WELL, I WASN'T THINKING ANYTHING THAT EXPENSIVE...NOT WITH OBAMA'S TAX HIKES.'..

With greater power (AKA money) comes greater responsibility (tax burden). Money is power. A rational person would realize that the rich don't "suffer" paying a bigger piece of the pie. It is laughable to suggest that the rich are handing over every $ they earn directly to ungrateful peons with no yearning for a future. Many of the hardest working Americans are the poorest in the nation, but they have been born into a new caste society. To think that American citizens have the same achievable dreams of those decades ago only dates you with your ignorance.

The problem with giving tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the top 1% is that our economy is driven by consumption. 70% of our GDP is related to personal consumption. If we continue down this path of more and more wealth being concentrated in the hands of the few, we are setting ourselves up for a Japanese style depression. The investor class can invest all they want in new businesses, but if the other 95% of the population continues to see their share of the income pie dwindle, there won't be any customers to buy what the investor class is selling. I could take all of my money and open a new restaurant chain, but if Joe Six-Pack is so stretched by high gas prices, health-care, and food costs, my restaurant will be a losing proposition. Business needs investors, but you don't have a business if you don't have any customers. Concentrating wealth in the hands of too few is bad for the economy... trickle-down economics is a failed policy.

George, I have posted to all that want to enter the political arena - please do so on the political pages. There is no doubt that economics and politics share a certain and integral aspect however, if one wishes to bring this into an economic prospective, both sides of an issue should be presented.

On the part of both candidates - what they present are POSITIONS and as a president they may or may not be able to deliver as this depends on CONGRESS. Ladies and Gentlemen - what you hear in speeches and commercials is known as rhetoric. At the present moment the Democratic party holds a majority in both houses and the White House economic stimulus package flew right through.
Bushy the first had a saying of "no new taxes" and "read my lips". When confronted with a budget crisis we had some new taxes.
Rhetoric has the same value as the used car salesman telling you that "it's a low mile cream puff"
The only real truths out here are that Obama has no long track record on anything and is a best guess. McCain has been on the un-necessary spending/aka pork barrel for years. Obama is a better orator with better campaign advisors. Beyond that it is really all b.s. designed to convey a message that the public wants to hear.
I really think this forum should remain non-partisan

William,

You say politics should remain on the politics pages, but then proceed to give your own political view. Is this a case of do as I say, not as I do?