for us on the fence Obama vs McCain

War
McCain supports the decision to invade Iraq and vows to keep U.S. troops there until the war is won. He recently said 2013 was a reasonable date for achieving that goal and ending U.S. involvement.

Obama, was an early opponent of the war who has promised to remove U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

============
taxes

McCain supports extending President Bush's cuts and reducing corporate tax rates, while Obama would let Bush's cuts expire for wealthy Americans -- those making more than $250,000 (126,315 pounds) annually -- and let the rate reductions on capital gains taxes expire, another item that normally affects primarily high-income earners.

McCain, opposed Bush's cuts when they were passed in 2001 and 2003 because he said they would increase the budget deficit and disproportionately favour the wealthy, but he supports extending them now, saying they would offer help to a struggling economy.
===================
NAFTA
Obama also would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, blamed by some Democrats and labour unions for costing U.S. jobs.

McCain opposes amending the pact and says it has been beneficial.

=================
Health care

McCain would use tax credits to help shift from employer-based insurance coverage to an open market system where people can choose from competing policies.

Obama would keep the existing job-based system and expand government involvement. He supports universal health coverage for the 47 million Americans without insurance, although he would only require coverage for children.

=====
other

Obama blasts McCain's economic leadership and his ties to Washington lobbyists, saying the Republican's presidency would amount to Bush's third term. Obama, who says McCain would prolong Bush's failed diplomatic approach, portrays the election as a choice between the future and the past.

Pollster John Zogby said every link drawn between the unpopular Bush and McCain would be a plus for Obama.

"Anything that reminds people of Bush hurts McCain, at least until he decides to step away from him and become a maverick again," Zogby said.

McCain has taken stances that put him at odds with many members of his party. His support for an overhaul of immigration laws angered some conservatives, although he softened his approach during the battle for the nomination.

Unlike Bush, McCain has addressed global warming as a legitimate problem and supports federal spending on stem-cell research.

"McCain has a chance to muddy up the differences on a few issues that have been politically helpful to Democrats in recent election cycles," Schnur said.

oldbeachbear's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
I'm not sure how anyone who can fog a mirror
Submitted by Spyglass on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 1:55pm.

Would think that raising taxes will help the budget. The problem is excess spending, by both parties of Congress PERIOD.

Throughout history, lower taxes has resulted in more tax money being collected, and generally, the more we give Congress, the more they will spend. So in all reality, we are screwed.

login to post comments
‘Fraid you’re wrong spyglass
JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 2:38pm.

“Throughout history, lower taxes has resulted in more tax money being collected...”

Nope, just a misinformed claim from the supply-siders and the Laffer Curve enthusiasts. It is not true and never has been.

The CBPP has refuted the claim in an article entitled: “CLAIM THAT TAX CUTS “PAY FOR THEMSELVES” IS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE”

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The Economist’s View analyzed the claim and found it to be untrue:

The Myth That Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves

In a study analyzing the effects of a 10% tax cut, the Congressional Budget Office determined that it would not even come close to paying for itself:

Congressional Budget Office Study

The Wall Street Journal says: “The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, using conventional analyses, says making the president’s tax cuts permanent would reduce federal revenues in 2016 by $314 billion. That is more than 10 times what the Treasury analysis suggests tax cuts would generate by prompting more hours of work, more savings and investment and more efficient use of resources.”

Do Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves?

Sebastian Mallaby references several more studies refuting this misconception:

The Return Of Voodoo Economics

It would be nice though, wouldn’t it?


login to post comments
Jeff C..
Submitted by Spyglass on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 3:55pm.

Since I don't have the DNC at my beck and call, it's tough to rebuke your links on a simple newspaper chat board in a timely manner. Your letter reads like a website link from the Democratic party.

But here's one URL I found quickly...

http://time-blog.com/curious_capitalist/2007/12/do_tax_cuts_ever_raise_revenue.html

Are you saying it didn't work for JFK in the 60's?

Are you saying that you don't think Congress spends too much? IF so, we can't agree on much of anything. At the root of it, that seems to be the difference. I want REAL cuts in Govt, across the board is fine with me. It is bloated out of Control. Repubs and Dems alike like to brag about the PORK they bring home, and I don't see it changing.

login to post comments
Not at all Spyglass
JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 4:22pm.

The JFK income tax rate cuts from 91% to 70% probably paid for themselves and I recall reading a paper about the UK doing something like this with success. Other tax cuts have not, even your paper says as much.

The links to the WSJ, Congressional Budget Office, CBPP and others were not political just factual, let us start there.

I think Congress spends WAAAAAAAAAY to much. My objection to tax reduction is that it is not linked to spending reductions. Tax cuts without spending cuts is just a tax increase in the future and not a very good deal given the interest that has to be paid.

I would favor a balanced budget amendment or a return to the “pay as you go” system Clinton implemented.

I have come to the conclusion that hoping for fiscally responsible or even fiscally truthful representatives to be elected is an unattainable fantasy

And I bet we can agree on this: it’s disheartening.


login to post comments
Fair enough and agreed..
Submitted by Spyglass on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 7:38pm.

Especially on the last two paragraphs.

login to post comments
spyglass: taxes
Submitted by sageadvice on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 2:27pm.

You didn't mention canceling the tax break given to high wage earners that is expiring! How come? It sure didn't bring in more taxes did it?

(When I say more taxes, I mean taxes that will BUY more. The dollar is down 50% since the Euro was introduced. Tax money doesn't go very far with Europeans now does it?

Anyway, we should be charging tariffs (raising money) on all that stuff from China and other weird places coming into the USA. No body HAS TO HAVE any of it. Do you need a poison toy? A polluted fish or shrimp?
I guess they would raise their tariff on the stuff we ship out, but I have a feeling they really need what we send out!

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.