John McCain Calls Out Obama’s Socialist Economic Plan

In John McCain’s Weekly Radio Address he lays out why Senator Obama’s economic plan is a socialist plan, and why that would harm our economy.

You see, he believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it. Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism. And a lot of Americans are thinking along those same lines. In the best case, “spreading the wealth around” is a familiar idea from the American left. And that kind of class warfare sure doesn’t sound like a “new kind of politics.”

This would also explain some big problems with my opponent’s claim that he will cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans. You might ask: How do you cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans, when more than 40 percent pay no income taxes right now? How do you reduce the number zero?

Well, that’s the key to Barack Obama’s whole plan: Since you can’t reduce taxes on those who pay zero, the government will write them all checks called a tax credit. And the Treasury will cover those checks by taxing other people, including a lot of folks just like Joe.

In other words, Barack Obama’s tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington. I suppose when you’ve voted against lowering taxes 94 times, as Senator Obama has done, a new definition of the term “tax credit” comes in handy.

At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives. They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Senator Obama. Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut it’s just another government giveaway.

What’s more, the Obama tax increase would come at the worst possible time for America, and especially for small businesses like the one Joe dreams of owning. Small businesses provide 16 million jobs in America. And a sudden tax hike will kill those jobs at a time when need to be creating more jobs.

Fortunately, America has an alternative to the phony tax cut my opponent started talking about only months ago. The McCain-Palin tax cut is the real thing. Among our other serious tax reforms, we’re going to reduce every income tax bill in America, and double the child deduction for every family. We will cut the capital gains tax. And we will cut business taxes to help create jobs, and keep American businesses in America.

As Joe the Plumber has now reminded us all, America didn’t become the greatest nation on earth by letting government “spread the wealth around.” In this country, we believe in spreading opportunity, for those who need jobs and those who create them. And that is exactly what I intend to do as President of the United States.

26 Responses

  1. Ok he spent a lot of time talking about Obama’s tax plan, but what about his. All he said for his is……

    “We will cut the capital gains tax. And we will cut business taxes to help create jobs, and keep American businesses in America.”

    So he will let the wealthy keep more of their money?

    Snipped from Chicago Sun Times:

    “Obama says he would hike several taxes on people making more than $250,000, including the amount they pay on capital gains. Currently, the top income tax rate is 35 percent. Under Obama, that would go back up to 39 percent. Obama’s staff told the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center he would raise the rates for people in the top two brackets — about 2.5 million filers out of 100 million-plus. People in those high tax brackets would see the tax rate on their capital gains hiked from the current 15 percent to 20-28 percent.

    Obama started his campaign saying his plans would not increase taxes for people earning less than $250,000. But he found himself in an apparent contradiction by saying he would tax all income to fund Social Security, not just income up to $102,000, as is now the case. So now, Obama’s plan calls for no Social Security tax on income between $102,000 and $250,000, but all income above $250,000 would be taxed for Social Security.

    The 95 percent-plus of the American population that earns less than $250,000 would see the following tax breaks: A $500-per-worker tax credit for people who earn less than $150,000 and do not itemize, and a $4,000 credit per child in college. Seniors who earn less than $50,000 would pay no income tax.

    The Tax Policy Center notes seniors could end up paying more if corporations respond to Obama’s proposed increase in the corporate tax rate by passing those costs along to consumers.

    McCain would make permanent most of the tax cuts President Bush has already enacted, including those that benefit the middle class, such as elimination of the marriage penalty and the increase in child credits. He would also keep cuts that benefit the wealthy, such as the elimination of the highest tax brackets. Obama would keep the breaks for the middle class but not the ones for the wealthy.

    McCain would also double the dependent exemption from $3,500 to $7,000, benefitting big families of all incomes.

    Obama would leave the top corporate tax rate at 35 percent. McCain would cut it to 25 percent.

    The two candidates differ widely in their approach to the estate tax, which the Republicans call the “death tax.” McCain would set it at 15 percent for estates above $5 million. Obama would set it at 45 percent for estates above $3.5 million.

    Both candidates favor extending a “patch” that would keep the Alternative Minimum Tax from encroaching on middle-income families.

    Largely because his tax proposals would leave tax breaks for the wealthy in place, McCain’s plan would cost the U.S. Treasury more than Obama’s, the Tax Policy Center found.

    The precise cost depends on whether you assume the current tax breaks would be renewed or would expire.

    Assuming they would have been renewed anyway, Obama’s plan would bring in an additional $700 billion in taxes over the next 10 years, while McCain’s would cost the Treasury $600 billion. Assuming legislators would have let the tax breaks expire, Obama’s plan would cost the U.S. Treasury $2.7 trillion and McCain’s $3.7 trillion.

    The center uses various assumptions both campaigns quarrel with. Each campaign also accuses the other of not being honest with the numbers.

    “Obama raises taxes in a way that’s detrimental to the economy,” said McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin. “The John McCain plan is a jobs-first plan that keeps small businesses in the game.”

    Obama’s Brian Deese said the $600 million deficit the study pro- jects McCain’s plan would create “doesn’t count impact of current Iraq war spending. If McCain’s plan drives the deficit up and puts upward pressure on interest rates, that increases costs for families and could force really Draconian, across-the-board spending cuts.”,CST-NWS-tax30.article

    What Obama is going to do is bring the tax brackets for the top 1% back to the way they were when Clinton was in office (35% now to 39%). While McCain is going to keep the same tax breaks that Bush has which will add additonal 600 million to our deficit. Now which one is truly better?

    I would like to say I make less than $20,000 ,but still pay taxes in FICA, Medicare, SDI (whatever that is), FIT, and SIT.

  2. Tax Policy Center is nonpartisan group that looked at both tax plans by Obama and McCain. They say some good things and not so good things about both plans.

    Snipped for Tax Policy Center

    “Fundamental reform of our tax system is one way to resolve these problems, but because reform creates both winners and losers, the leading presidential candidates have not addressed it seriously. Nonetheless, both candidates have proposed major changes to the nation’s tax laws. Senator McCain would permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, increase deductions for taxpayers supporting dependents, reduce the corporate income tax rate, and allow immediate deductions for the cost of certain short-lived capital equipment. Senator Obama would permanently extend certain provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts primarily affecting taxpayers with incomes under $250,000; increase the maximum rate on capital gains and qualified dividends; and enact new and expanded targeted tax breaks for workers, retirees, homeowners, savers, students, and new farmers. Senator McCain proposes to extend and expand permanently the AMT “patch” that has prevented most individuals and families with incomes below $200,000 from being affected by the tax, and in our interpretation of his proposal, Senator Obama would also extend the patch. Each candidate would also increase the estate tax exemption and reduce the estate tax rate compared with current law in 2011 and beyond, although Senator McCain would cut the tax much more than Senator Obama. Finally, each candidate promises to broaden the tax base and reduce corporate loopholes. McCain lists eight breaks for oil companies as targets but, other than that, is short on details for his pledge to eliminate “corporate welfare.” Obama identifies a variety of steps, including basis reporting for capital gains, taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and enacting sanctions on international tax havens that don’t cooperate with enforcement efforts, but he would also need additional as-yet-unspecified policies to achieve his revenue target for base broadening.

    Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.6 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10 and 7 percent of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law, respectively. Furthermore, as in the case of President Bush’s tax cuts, the true cost of McCain’s policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs. If his policies were fully phased in and permanent, the ten-year cost would rise to $4.0 trillion, or about 11 percent of total revenues.

    Both candidates argue that their proposals should be scored against a “current policy” baseline instead of current law. Such a baseline assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended and the AMT patch made permanent. Against current policy, Senator Obama’s proposals would raise $300 billion, an increase of 2 percent, and Senator McCain’s proposals lose $1.0 trillion (if fully phased-in and permanent), a decrease of roughly 2 percent. Senator McCain has stressed that deficits should be closed by spending cuts, but policies he identifies, such as limiting earmarks, would offset only part of the revenue losses attributable to his tax plan. As noted, both candidates may be overoptimistic in their revenue targets for closing tax loopholes-Obama probably more than McCain.

    The two candidates’ plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise.

    The impact of the tax code on economic activity under each candidate’s policies would differ in several important ways. Under Senator McCain’s proposed policies, the top marginal rates (35 percent on individual income and 25 percent on corporate income) would be significantly lower than under Senator Obama’s plan (39.6 and 35 percent, respectively). McCain’s reduced individual and corporate rates could improve economic efficiency and increase domestic investment, but the larger future deficits would reduce and could completely offset any positive effect. In contrast, Senator Obama’s proposed new tax credits could encourage desirable behavior, particularly if the childless EITC and payroll tax rebate encourage additional labor supply among childless low-income individuals. However, he would also direct new subsidies at an already favored group-seniors -and an already favored activity-borrowing for housing-which could probably be better directed elsewhere. ”

  3. Boston Tea Pary anyone?

  4. The bottom line: Obama believes in the Share the Wealth concepts. The increased taxes will lower government revenue, requiring Obama to move it down the economic scale. From 250K… to 200K… to $150K and so on. Happens every time.

    This image is bang-on, folks; Obama is pitted against the plumber/would-be-small-businessman.

  5. Exactly Mike O!

    Heavenly - no one is reading your cut and paste posts.

    Try coming up with your own verbiage without relying on someone else’s brain.

  6. First of I do not claim to be an expert on the economy (which a lot of us are not) that is why I put that infomation in quotation marks because that means that they are not my words. I also put up there that it is a “Snipped from Tax Policy Center”, so of course they are not my words.

    Unlike you I don’t just like putting up things without true evidence or facts to back them up.

    Also this isn’t even your site so why are you so threaten by my appearance here?

  7. Mike O is right. “Tricke-Down Socialism”. That is exactly where Obama is going. Why $250K? Because that sounds good for now. Everyone can think yeah, someone making $250K is rich so take their money. But to a person on welfare, someone making $75K is rich so why not take their money too. And while I’m not trying to say that $250K isn’t a good living, one thing that seems to be missing in all of the news items is how much it costs to live in certain areas. $250K in some places will buy a large house and acres of land and all kinds of niceties. In other areas like NY or Los Angeles or D.C., it’ll buy a small townhouse with a postage stamp sized yard - maybe.

  8. Call it Socialism if you like, but government programs are intended to help those of us that really need it. I was not born into a family that had a lot of money. Twenty years ago, I was a starving student - there were times when I literally did not know where my next meal was coming from. I had to depend on Sallie Mae, Health Education Assistance Loans, grants, and other forms of government assistance to get by. If you paid federal taxes in the 1980’s, then you helped to put me through med school, and I thank you for that. I have worked hard and paid off those debts, and have done well for myself. My wife and I now pay over $150K annually in taxes, and will undoubtedly pay more under Obama’s plan, but we are voting for Obama, because we want to see others have the same opportunities that we have had. Far more families will get tax breaks under Obama’s plan than under McCain’s. Joe the Plumber will benefit more from Obama’s plan than McCain’s. Most of the tax increases that Obama proposes will be for that small minority of taxpayers that make more than I do. Believe me, they can afford it.

  9. what people really need to realize is that those who have enough money can also make their primary residence and major amounts of their wealth in other countries. in essense, we don’t want them to “take their toys and go home” which will happen should they be taxed at obama’s rate.

  10. Just to make sure that I understand this correctly, I’ll lay out Obama’s tax policy. He wants more middle class families to experience the “American Dream,” so to ensure that this happens, he wants to give a tax cut to anyone who makes below $250,000 (he still has yet to explain if this is net, gross, or even if it includes inventory) a year and a tax increase (another quick side bar-the last president to raise taxes during a time of economic crisis was Hoover, and that helped catapult the Great Depression) to anyone who makes the same amount. (Also, don’t be fooled, the tax cuts are the SECOND part of his plan. The first part is to allow the Bush tax cuts [which were responsible for the rebate checks in 2001] to expire. So first, he’ll let the Bush tax cuts expire, then he’ll “lower” [theoretically] the taxes to a rate which is HIGHER THAN THE CURRENT RATE. This still counts as a tax cut, because the law, at that point, would be different, but as a net cost, the taxes are going UP.) Then with the money that he takes from the rich he wants to give back to the middle class, so that they in turn can become the rich. I get a little confused by this because it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Why would you encourage people to experience the “American Dream,” and then penalize them for achieving it?
    I always thought that part of the “American Dream” was being dependent on yourself and yourself alone, that you WORK your way up to the top; depending on what YOU perceive the “top” to be. Work… now that is a novel idea- actually having to do something other than cry or whine to get what you want. People say that it isn’t “fair” that some people have this and it isn’t “fair” that they don’t have that. Here’s a bit of advice that I was given 26 years ago, LIFE ISN’T FAIR. If you don’t like the way things are going in your life, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Don’t stand around and complain about how it shouldn’t be that way. Furthermore, what gives you the right to take what someone else has worked for because you want a piece of the pie? Give me a break.

    I’m not wealthy by any means, I didn’t grow up wealthy and unless I win the lottery in the future I don’t expect to become wealthy; so I am completely unbiased here, actually-Obama’s plan might help me (that is, until he raises my taxes too). But I don’t want it. I don’t want ANY part of it. I’d rather earn my money and earn respect, than to accept a hand out from anyone. I believe that this is one of the biggest problems facing America today. People have been conditioned to believe that they deserve things in life and in return they become too dependent on the government and not dependent on themselves. People keep standing in line to receive that government hand out, when they should be receiving a hand up. What happened to the days of people working two or three jobs to make ends meet? What happened to working 14 hour days to make sure that your family had food to eat and clothes to wear? I’ve always thought that the government is there to protect you, not provide for you.

    The media is constantly talking about the rising unemployment rate and I just don’t get it. I know for a fact that the U.S. military is always hiring. Now I know, I know, not everyone is cut out for the military. I know that it is much easier to complain about not having a job, complain about not having a place to live, and complain about not having health insurance than it is take the actions to fix your problems. It’s easier to waste 20 years of your life struggling to take care of your family than it would be for you to sacrifice 4 years of your life to gain valuable work experience, learn a trade or defend the country that has allowed you to have so many options.

    Sorry, I’ve gotten off track… back to Obama’s tax policy… Okay, so you tax the rich- what do you think the rich will do? If I were rich and someone told me that they were going to take some of my money I would probably make cuts to my budget. First, because I’m not a heartless jerk I would probably raise my prices to try to make up for the money that the government has taken away, so that I can still pay all of my taxes, keep my employees and pay for their healthcare. Of course raising my prices during an economic crisis probably won’t bring much change because most people couldn’t afford the prices before I raised them much less after, but that’s what I would do. After I’ve raised my prices and waited a few months I realize, just as I thought, I’m still not making any money-so, I start making more drastic cuts. In order to not lay off any of my employees maybe I’ll decide to stop paying for their healthcare-but wait, under Obama’s plan I’ll be fined for doing that; there goes that idea. Let’s see, I’m already having a hard time, so when I try to save my employees from having to stand in the unemployment line, I try to do something that will allow them to keep their jobs, but that will make me lose MORE money-so what other choice do I have but to lay off some of my employees? This is exactly how things will go, I promise you. Oh wait, I forgot to point out that under Obama’s plan, for every new employee I hire I will get a $3,000 credit! YES!! That will help pay I don’t know, a month- a month and a half’s worth of salary-MAYBE.
    I work for a small business, and was having a conversation with someone about how Obama’s tax policy will affect me and my job. The person that I was talking to also works for a small business and said, “Well, good, the business owner should have to pay more.” I almost lost it, I had to bite my tongue to not say, “Well, I hope that you are first one to lose their job if Obama wins this election.” And it’s true, I hope that EVERY ONE of these anti-American jerks loses their job and has the worst four years of their life.
    And as far as this crap about giving 95% of American’s a tax break goes, how can you do that when 40% of the population doesn’t pay taxes! It’s a joke! What is he going to do, send everyone a check regardless if they work or not? “When you spread the wealth around…. I believe it’s good for everybody,” are you kidding me?!?! This is socialism at its finest! Please tell me ONE nation or government that this ACTUALLY worked in! Let me give you an example of how ridiculous this is: I went to the grocery store and bought some sugar, going by what Obama says we should do, I should divvy up that sugar into 12 equal parts (because that is how many homes are in my building) and distribute it to all of the residents of my apartment complex; because it isn’t fair for me to have more sugar than anyone else. I know some of you will say that it isn’t the same thing, but you’re wrong, it is. If you take out the word sugar and replace it with money, it would be exactly what Obama is insinuating that we do, and this my friends is socialism. I was reading a book today about an unrelated topic and found a quote that was so relevant to our current situation that I feel obligated to include it in this essay. The author of Season of Strangers writes, “What the people… don’t realize is if it hadn’t been for the great division of wealth… throughout the ages, none of your magnificent antiques would exist. No castles, no palaces, no pyramids. You’d find yourselves living in the pale dim world of sameness.” She continues, “It takes money to accomplish things. Great fortune often equates with great beauty. That beauty is passed on to us all-or will be, once the art and the architecture commissioned by the men of wealth today is passed on to future generations.” And that is the most important arguement against our future as socialists. I refuse to one day tell my children or their children what it WAS like to be an American. I refuse to tell them the way things USED to be, like many present day Native Americans have to pass on stories through the generations on what it was like when they were free, and they had their land. How dare we not take a stand against this intrusion of our life and liberties. Our forefathers are probably rolling over in their graves at this assanine idea. Americans have shed their blood for this country and it’s ideals for hundreds of years and it seems as though no one cares anymore. To me, it seems that no one cares about the Constitution, no one cares about things that are fundamentally right and wrong and no one cares about our future; dear God, I hope that I am wrong

  11. Hello.

    I’d like to add my two cents.

    The American way of life has to change. It is naive to think that whoever is President is NOT going to have to raise taxes on SOMEONE. Bush’s tax cuts matched with wildly irresponsible spending has created the largest national debt(as a percentage of GDP) in 63 years. The last time it was higher was when Harry Truman was Pres. right after WWII.
    In addition, every President since Truman has paid DOWN the national debt except: Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

    Ironic that the heroes of conservative government, the very guys that invented trickle down economics have done nothing but push the mess under the carpet and create the largest debt per capita ever.

    Anyone who thinks that we can fight two wars, give big corporations massive tax breaks, bailout Wall Street AND cut taxes is living in a dream world, period.

    The problem is not the politicians, it’s also us. We have to find more creative ways to earn a living in a world where higher taxes are a reality.

  12. Heavnly - I didn’t realize this was your website either. I happen to agree with the blogger on this website.

    I believe she is spot on.

    Unlike you who has no idea what you talk about and just cut and paste random information as if it has any basis, which is doesn’t.

    You come on her to try to provide a postive perspective of Barry/ Barrack or whatever his flavor of the month name is and a negative one on McCain.

    Here is a big clue for you - it’s not working.

    Let’s really look at the breakdown between John McCain and the Messiah - look through all the attachments to Obama - scary, dirty, fraudulent attachments.

    Again, you are so off your mark and your statements are weak.

    Where did your boy get his money. Why did he travel to the Middle East.

    So what is his name - Barack or Barry?

    Why is he connected to so many Middle Easterners. Why did so many provide contributions for him.

    Why is there a non-partisan group called Muslims for Obama.

    Most of those Muslims in Dearborn, MI are sending money back to Hamas, especially the restaurant owners. I know for a fact La Shish (a chain started in Dearborn) - the owner was caught sending money to Hamas - he escaped back to Lebananon, left his wife “holding the bag” -she’s in prison, the kids are being raised by relatives.

    Birds of a feather - flock together.

    Now I know why the ONE wants to sit down with the Iranian President….

    Obama followers have got to be the biggest all time ignorant people on the face of the earth.

    See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

    They actually trust this dirty, deceitful candidate with our Security Codes.

    Beyond Scary!

  13. The Obama/Biden ticket’s entire campaign theme is based on “the last eight years.” Maybe we should really look at “the last two years,” or the time period when both the House and the Senate were run by Democrats.

    In December 2006, after six years of Bush and the last month before the Democrats took over both houses of the national legislature, a snapshot of our economy looked like this.

    Unemployment stood at 4.4%.
    Real GDP growth over the previous four years (under a Republican President, House and Senate) averaged 3% per year.
    A gallon of regular gasoline cost $2.30.
    The S&P 500 stock index stood at 1418, or 84% above its post-911 low and more than 7% higher than when Bush took office.
    Every year of Bush’s Presidency, real (inflation-adjusted) disposable income per person went up. By the end of 2006, the average person was making 9% more in real terms than before Bush became President .

    If you recall, that 2006 election was considered a referendum on Iraq. The people wanted change, so they threw out the Republicans and replaced them with Democrats. Welcome Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

    Here is how they handled Iraq once in office: Harry Reid told us that the Iraq war was “lost” and the surge was not “accomplishing anything.” Senator Obama introduced legislation that would have prevented the surge and would have taken all US troops out of Iraq by March 2008 (that would be seven months ago, as you read this) .

    Were they right?

    Barack Obama now admits that “the surge succeeded.” So much for that change. And as the surge succeeded, Congress’s approval ratings plummeted. The latest CBS/New York Times poll has it at 12%, well less than half of the already low level it stood at when the Republican Congress was being tossed out in 2006.

    The Democratic Congress did a great job, if what you’re looking for in a Congress is continual investigation of Republicans. Did the White House out CIA agent Valerie Plame? No, it was the anti-White House Richard Armitage at State, but Congress investigated anyway. Did Alberto Gonzalez, with White House urging, fire nine prosecutors for political reasons? Probably not, and it wouldn’t be a crime anyway, but Congress investigated, and is still investigating. Did the CIA, under orders from the White House, “torture” prisoners? No evidence of that yet, but Congress is on the case.

    What Congress would not investigate was anything about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, they fought against such investigations and cast aspersions against anyone who would even doubt the soundness of those institutions. Here is what Barney Frank said:

    These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.

    You can also see on YouTube how Democrats treated the regulators trying to reign in Fannie and Freddie.

    But now we know what happened. Fannie and Freddie were run corruptly and ineptly and went bankrupt. Their $1.5 trillion portfolios had to be rescued by the government this year. Franklin Raines, the Clinton-appointed CEO of Fannie Mae who was vigorously defended by Congressional Democrats, was sued by government regulators for cooking the books to the tune of $10 billion to increase his own bonuses to the tune of tens of millions. He settled his suit for an estimated $25 million.

    On the other hand, here is what the New York Times had to say in 2003 .

    The Bush administration is rightly pushing for the Treasury Department to regulate the two giants, along with the network of federal home loan banks. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae provide financing to lenders by creating a secondary market for mortgages. All told, these two institutions’ debt portfolio exceeds more than $1.5 trillion. Their current regulator is ill equipped to keep tabs on Freddie’s and Fannie’s sophisticated hedging strategies and the other financial moves they use to manage their huge investments.

    And here is what John McCain said on the Senate floor:

    For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac… I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

    So on the big things, the surge in Iraq and the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to our recent financial mess, the Democrats were wrong. Dead wrong. One hundred eighty degrees out wrong.

    On the other hand, who supported the surge? George W. Bush and John McCain.

    Who tried to strengthen the oversight and regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? George W. Bush and John McCain.

    In the case of the surge, Bush and McCain got their way. The result? Apparent victory in Iraq, a country that is now a democracy, at peace with its neighbors, no longer a WMD threat, no longer a terrorist sanctuary, and no longer filling hundreds of mass graves with hundreds of thousands of its own citizens.

    In the case of Fannie and Freddie, Bush and McCain did not get their way - Barney Frank did. The result? The failure of Fannie and Freddie, law suits against their executives and the spark that sent banks failing and stocks falling across the globe to the point of threatening a Great Depression.

    Let’s vote for change. Let’s undo what we did in 2006

  14. McCain needs to guarantee a revision of Section 415 of the Internal Revenue Code provides for dollar limitations on benefits and contributions under qualified retirement plans – in particular 401(k) contributions.

    The contribution allowed into a 401(k) needs to be DOUBLED – even if it’s a temporary (emergency) increase. It’s the only way hard working Americans who have paid their mortgages, completed sending their children to college and are still working toward retirement can hedge against Obama’s socialist plans and future socialist nation.

    I’m 57 years old, paid off two mortgages (never missed a payment), never been unemployed in my working career (over 35 year), never had an outstanding balance on my credit card since I’ve had it (over 30 years) and now losing over $100,000 from my 401(k) retirement account.

    My income is a little over $90,000 per year without any deductions except myself. Since I have no credit card debt and no mortgage(s), my income is severely exposed and can be easily “Obamatized” in the near future.

    I don’t need more “cash on hand” what I do need is a way to protect my income from “Obamatization”! Allowing 401(k) contributions to DOUBLE (if only for the next 5-10 years) would greatly help while also contributing to the economy- my 401(k) is diversified in stocks, bonds, etc. I’m not trying to totally avoid my tax liability – the 401(k) will still be taxed after I retire.

    McCain needs to get on the stick and start promoting the temporary DOUBLING of 401(k) contribution to ward-off the oncoming “Obamatization” of the income of hard working, paid-in-full Americans!


    Doug D.

    Ps. I take offense to the claim that many people are losing “their” homes. Virtually all of these people are part of the sub-prime loan debacle and have very little or NO equity in “their” home. So, how is the house they are currently living in suddenly considered “their” home.

  15. Are these socialist ideas?

    “I don’t believe the wealthiest 10% of Americans should get 60% of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10% should get the breaks…I’m not giving tax cuts for the rich.”

    “…I think that it’s clear that there’s a growing gap between rich and poor in America, the haves and the have-nots…I think that the people who need it most and need the relief most are working middle-income Americans and that’s what I want to give to them.”

    “We give the millionaire a $2,000 refund. Gov. Bush gives him $50,000.”

    “I don’t think Bill Gates needs a tax cut. I think you and your parents do.”

    “I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.”

    “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.”

    “I am concerned that repeal of the estate tax would provide massive benefits solely to the wealthiest and highest-income taxpayers in the country.”

    They were John McCain’s ideas eight years ago.

  16. Agreed Doug D. and for the record my home has been paid for in full since 7 years ago. We paid off a 15 yr fixed term loan in 8 years.

    It’s called planning and saving.

    I also work extremely hard, I put in 80 sometime over a 100 hours in a week - I am one of the salaries that would be affected at 45% tax hike with Obama’s plan.

    Why should I work this hard to hand over my money to someone else.

    No way, no how, NObama!

  17. Wait a minute….what about the bail out? Isn’t that a form of socialism? We the tax payers are paying for those big corporations’ mistakes. 800 billion dollars worth mistakes.

  18. A great cartoon lambasting this phenomenon on the Reasons To Be Cheerful, Part 3 blog…

  19. Regarding Socialism:

    Will someone from the religiuos right tell me the meaning of ACTS: 2:42-47?

    42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. 44. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45. And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 46. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 47. Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.


  21. Avril - McCain has nothing to do with Bush. He was an outsider to the Republicans and reached across the aisle to Democrats.

    Do your homework before spouting Obama Troll Rhetoric that no one takes seriously.

  22. Heavily - who do you think put us in this mess in the first place. Who put the bailout together - who is controlliing congress to pass it through.

    I don’t know how much more ignorant you can sound. It is obvious to me you know nothing about economics or politics.

    Perhaps you did come straight off the boat, because you obviously are not American educated.

  23. Sparky, Your are to be commended on working so hard, I sure your kids appreciate your dedication to your work. As far as politics, you come up a few bricks shy of a full load.

    Democrats have a 51 to 49 majority in the senate which includes two independents, one of which is Joe Liberman who supports the republicans. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster, 2/3 majority in both houses to override a veto. A bill has to pass both houses and be signed by the president to become law.

    That makes the senate a 50-50 even split with a tie breaking vote cast by the vice president, guess which way he will vote.

    Just how much control of congress by the democrats do you see here?

    As to the 45% tax hike you say you would be paying under the Obama plan, involves republican math.

    Highest tax rate in 2000 was 39.6%, today it is 35%,
    Obama is talking about taking the tax rates back to what they were in 2000 for those making above $250,000, That means you would see a tax increase of 4.6%

  24. Not true Bill, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this. Congress does controll the votes in congress and Liberman still remains a Democrat and typically votes Democrat except relating to War issues.

    You shoud be proud of your girl Pelosi and her boy Reid they are doing a bang up job in Congress.

    Has this Congress performed any of it’s duties? The answer is no. They are the most “do nothing” group to ever occupy the Houses of Congress.

    However, I never get tired of them blaming their inactivity on Republicans and the veto. If you craft sound legislation with bi-partisan intention (didn’t speaker Pelosi promise a new era of cooperation?) then filibuster and veto are not really issues. So as usual it’s the Republicans fault when they are in control and it’s the Republicans fault when they aren’t.

    Face facts Democrats cannot hold their own accountable. It is always the fault of someone else.

  25. The Most important challenge GM faces is to win back the trust of the tax payers. Giving away billions of tax payer money is not going to go under good sights of the consumers

  26. I’ve been interested in taxations for longer then I care to acknowledge, both on the individual side (all my working life story!!) and from a legal stand since passing the bar and pursuing tax law. I’ve supplied a lot of advice and rectified a lot of wrongs, and I must say that what you’ve put up makes complete sense. Please uphold the good work - the more people know the better they’ll be outfitted to comprehend with the tax man, and that’s what it’s all about.

Leave a Reply