Krontak

Ladred

I can't agree with this part. This promotes larger families, and gives incentive to low income families to have more children so they earn a bigger EITC check come tax return time. Seriously shouldn't be giving folks incentive to grow our population, and this is what I think will be an offset of this. Give increased benefits for families with under three children.

__________________
φ

Deson

Given the history of Obama having his name on things he wasn't fully a part of or were otherwise gifted to him (See: Ethics reform) and that it was after he announced his candidacy I remain wary but will not contest the info today. More than I expected for sure though, thank you.

With how expensive it is to have kids, they would have to be monumentally stupid to pop out babies for tax breaks. This isn't old welfare though the stupidity does present a nice segue into education policy.

__________________

Krontak

In all honesty, McCain's plan is giving larger tax deductions for children than Obama I believe. But where the two differ, McCain's plan offers no tax breaks to individuals with no children, unless he's scribbled that in recently.

Deson

In all honesty I'm trying to find a solid presentation of the McCain with no bashing but it's proving a bitch.

__________________

Widem

This is definately not true especially with taxes. Guy makes 1 mil versus the guy who makes 1k...$100=$100 bucks for both of them, but its 10% of one persons income while only .01% of another's.

Prefacing, I wanted to address the comments made in the second section about Bill Clinton. His economic "boom" was acheived by the repealing of a huge portion of the Glass-Steagall Act over the course of his Presidency. I allowed for cheap demand deposit funds that previously couldn't be used for risky investment to be used to pretty much rage the market, until of course it crashed with subprime loans. So everyone who lost their home can personally thank him for that. Not to meantion there were many times the reference "on steroids" was used. Bill Clintons plan was a perfect example of an econmy on steroids. Inject tons of extra funds that we previously used for financial security and when we came down from the financial high, we came down pretty fucking hard.

Anyways I've never been opposed to the entirety of Obama's tax plan. The parts I very much like which are different than McCain's unless noted are:

-Reducing payments to Medicare
-Tax breaks for companies who employ US workers.
-Limiting subsidies on American Farmers.
-Tax break for small busines. (Net Income of under $3mil, Net Worth under $8mil(This is actually a new developement from his camp which is identical to McCain's))

The stuff I very much don't like:
-Cutting subsidies to banks who provide student loans.
-Everything he has to do with healthcare costs.
-Increasing Social Security Payments, increasing at different levels for different incomes.

Krontak, despite this being a very biased article which has already been pointed out, you can still pick out some very fatal flaws and misleading info. Fisrt off, you should know that 96% of all taxes derived off of income are paid by the top 50% of the country. So using your brain if across the board taxes were increased by 5% the dollar amount being paid would drastically increase for the top 50% b/c thats how math works...IE how 100=/=100. Conversely if taxes are to be cut, by 5% across the boards the top 50% of earners are going to save the most money b/c well they pay the most taxes.

Thats why you alway hear about tax cuts for the wealthy or tax increases for the wealthy. The wealthy are pretty much the only people paying taxes.

I will say though that what pisses me off the most is the increasing of payments to social security. First off its perpetuating a program which should be taken into the backyard and shot. Second, Social Security was devised as a capping program. You can only pay so much in and you can only receive so much benefit based on your income. Social Security checks arent the same for everyone, its based on your income and how much you paid in. After you start making a certain amount its understood you don't really need it so your capped on your payin as well as your withdrawl.

Making people pay more for less retirement is blatent redistribution of wealth. This can't even be rationalized as anything but redistribution.

Anyways, from a tax standpoint most americans will have to pay less money on their refunds, including myself under Obama's plan. The kicker is im forward thinknig enough to realize the consequences. Nor do I think its fair.

Otis

Wow, a meaningful, substantive discussion on issues?

/tear

__________________

Deson

Found two decent articles.

John McCain on Tax Reform
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploa...teTaxPlans.pdf

Widem, for those parts you listed as differing between them, pretty sure they are the same just executed differently. McCain has always been a critic of the Farm Bill even as Obama voted for it, McCain seeks to reduce much of the fraud and waste in Medicare, thus reducing costs and while I haven't seen anything on American employment tax breaks, he's been a staunch advocate of retraining programs for displaced American workers.

Wholly unintended from the OP.

__________________

Widem

I'm going to disagree unofficially with some of this. I say unofficially b/c what you say is true, but I feel theres so much more to the picture. Farming for one, McCain is a huge supporter of ethanol (another debate done 50x entirely) which the way we are going about it I find to be over protectionist of the midwest. As with medicare, it makes me laugh b/c I kinda feel like a hypocrit. Obama's plan for this medicare cost saving reminds me of his role in Iraq (not this arguement I know!) take away the money (or pull out) and people will sort the mess out. I just feel medicare would be able to sort it out on their own way better so I support that, thus rationalizing my hypocracy.

As of the retraining program, 100% Awesome. As of American Blue collar workers 50% epic fail. 50% is a made up number, but I personally work in Economic Developement in St. Louis. We have taken some major hits in certain areas and a good specific and stereotypical example is the loss of Ford Motor Plant, which i can add my father-in-law worked there and recieved a forced early retirement. The retraining program for the autoworkers was very difficult and still 2 years after the fact many still refuse to do anything. I really could list pages and page of problems that were ran into, but it was a demoralizing mess. Whereas the layoff awhile back from then Macdonnell Dougless went very smooth, but a lot of them were engineers and such.

My biggest LOL was talking to some of the Autoworkers about starting businesses. My Specialty is Small Business Entrepnuership. They had 0 idea how to handle finances all teh time as well as were just shocked that there would be weeks or months they couldnt pay themselves b/c you can't make money all the time. An the fact working more than 40 hours a week was just unheard of. A lot of it was a real reality check for them because autoworkers had a very stable and good lifestyle.

Deson

Supports ethanol, hates subsidies, voted against the farm bill. McCain: Favors ethanol, opposes subsidies

Rest of your post, no contest, topic for a different discussion entirely. Just wanted to point out they were either not different points or points you would likely agree with McCain on.

__________________