Not a problem. Debate is good. My comments below:
Obama said he could “pay for every dime” of his spending and tax cut proposals “by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.” That’s wrong – his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain’s, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts. I have heard him explain his tax plan including closing corporate loopholes and rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, many, many, many times. I object to nothing else other than the attempt to make it appear that he is trying to hide the roll back of the tax cuts to the wealthy. He twisted McCain’s words about Afghanistan, saying, “When John McCain said we could just 'muddle through' in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources.” Actually, McCain said in 2003 we “may” muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there. Semantics. Really? Really? He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of “working” families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain’s plan at 66 million and finds that Obama’s plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in. What does this mean? Ok if only 81% will get tax cuts, I am still all for the plan. However, in order to make a comparison they need to compare apples with apples. This factoid is comparing apples to oranges. It attempts to draw a contrast without the benefit of comparing two like quantities. Obama asked why McCain would "define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year"? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, "But seriously ..." I really don't think the state of the economy or the middle class is something to joke about, do you? They also fail to note that John McCain NEVER answered the question at Sadddleback. He joked about it....seriously! Obama noted that McCain’s health care plan would "tax people’s benefits" but didn’t say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families. Touche. He said McCain, far from being a maverick who’s "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time. And Dem iniatives are the reason our country is in this state?!? Yeah, those repubiclan policies have done us all good. Obama said "average family income" went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn't correct. An aide said he was really talking only about "working" families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush. I am sure median family income has creeped up. It is pretty heavy on the top pulling the median up. Add in the cost of goods going up and the net benefit is lower for all Americans. --- On Tue, 9/2/08, UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [UC] Palin as prez To: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 3:39 PM Amirah Leslie Naim wrote: > Here is a link: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html > > Let me be clear - 95% of WORKING families will receive a larger tax cut > under Obama than McCain. I feel that throwing Welfare recipients into > the discussion is a distraction and I am curious about your source for > that conclusion. > > 60% of all taxpayers make less than $66,700. They will receive a larger > tax cut under Obama than McCain. I am really glad you raised the point, > although again, I am flabbergasted that people still have > misconceptions. Many people claim they don't know enough about Obama > and I shake my head as it appears that in all honesty McCain has changed > his positions so many time on huge issues (even speaking out about > legislation he proposed) that if it weren't so serious, it would be > comical. The information is out there for all to see and know. There > is no reason to rush to judgement about McCain or Obama because an > informed voter can get all the information they need. > > If you look at the graphic, the two tax plans are basically inversions > of each other. McCain gives tax breaks to those who do not need it > while Obama's tax plan gives more substantial tax breaks to WORKING > families, those making less that 250K. > Al Krigman wrote: > From what I've read, the veracity of this statement depends on how > you define "tax cut." Isn't it true that Obama includes in his 95% > the people who currently pay no taxes but will get monetary tax > credits from the federal government? This is how I read what's being > said. If so, then a portion of the 95% is "welfare" and not a tax > cut for working people who pay a fraction of their wages to the > government and think of a tax cut in terms of a smaller fraction. not taking sides here, just adding info: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html .................. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
