Obama vs. McCain - ..Different Strokes for Different Folks!...

Larry, thanks for the info. Kinda looks as if the big "O" wants to dig deeply into your pocket and ruin the US...

Thanks Larry, I will check out your links. I actually found this post because Lane Baily reblogged it. I am like you I vote for the party of less govenment in our lives, less taxes. This is scary I had not heard the capital gains information. I hope it comes out in the debates. IMO we are on a train moving fast to socialism.

Larry - as usual this is excellent. Not sure how I missed it yesterday. I just have one question - is this Obama's tax proposals 1.0, 2.0 or the latest 3.0 version? I'm sure there's time to get to 6.0 before November!

Larry ~

Congratulations this post is now featured in the Silent Majority Group of Active Rain.

Larry ~

Congratulations this post is now featured in the Blatant Politics Group of Active Rain.

Hi Larry:  "This is being provided by the left wing media." ... Snopes.com?  GO FIGURE!

I guess FactCheck.org is another "left wing media" outlet.  The "left wing media" is the answer to everything:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_obama_tax_my_profits_if_i.html

"  No. A new e-mail being circulated about Obama's tax proposals is almost entirely false.

Alert readers may already have noted that this chain e-mail does not provide links to any of Obama's actual proposals or cite any sources for the claims it makes. That is because they are made up.This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible to believe that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness on the part of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama's tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate. "

I understand why you are confused Roger!

Today, Obama Said Americans Earning Less Than $250,000 A Year Will Not See Higher Taxes:

Obama: "If you make less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase one single dime." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Golden, CO, 9/16/08)

But Obama's Economic Advisers Said Individuals Would See Higher Taxes Starting At $200,000:

In August, Obama's Economic Advisers Wrote An Op-Ed That Said Individuals Would See Higher Taxes Starting At $200,000 Under An Obama Administration. Obama Economic Advisers Jason Furman And Austan Goolsbee: "Sen. Obama believes that one of the principal problems facing the economy today is the lack of discretionary income for middle-class wage earners. That's why his plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000 -- not income taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend or payroll taxes." (Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, Op-Ed, "The Obama Tax Plan," The Wall Street Journal, 8/14/08)

During The Campaign, Obama Has Called For Higher Taxes On Americans Earning Significantly Less Than $250,000:

September 2007: Obama Suggested Applying The 12.4 Percent Social Security Tax To All Earnings. "While Obama has suggested imposing the 12.4 percent tax on all income above $97,000 per year, Edwards would only impose it on those making more than $200,000 per year. Income between $97,000 and $200,000 would continue to be exempt from Social Security taxes under the Edwards proposal." (Teddy Davis, "Obama Floats Social Security Tax Hike," ABC News, abcnews.go.com, 9/22/07)

April 2008: Obama Said Raising Capital Gains Taxes Wouldn't Impact The "Average Person"; Didn't Call For Exempting Middle-Class Taxpayers From The Tax Increase. Obama: "In terms of capital gains, I've suggested we might go back up to 20 (percent), because..." Fox News' Chris Wallace: "You had suggested 28 (percent)." Obama: "Well, what I've said is I certainly would not raise it higher than it was under Ronald Reagan, but the fact is that I'm mindful that we've got to keep our capital gains tax to a point where we can actually get more revenue. But that's not something that's going to affect the average person with a 401(k) when people start talking about how, 'Well, there are, you know, millions of Americans who own stock,' most of them own stock in 401(k)s where their taxes are deferred and they pay ordinary income taxes when they finally cash out." (Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 4/27/08)

Obama Voted In Favor Of The Democrats' FY 2009 Budget, Which Would Raise Tax Rates For Americans Earning $42,000 Or More:

Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats' FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48-45: R 2-44; D 44-1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

The Democrats' Budget Would Raise Taxes On Individuals Earning Approximately $42,000 Or More. "The resolution Obama voted for would not have increased taxes on any single taxpayer making less than $41,500 per year in total income, or any couple making less than $83,000. The $32,000 figure is approximately the taxable income of a single person making $41,500 per year, after all deductions and exclusions." (FactCheck.org, "The $32,000 Question," www.factcheck.org, 7/11/08)

• NOTE: The Democrats' Budget Raised Tax Rates On The 25, 28, 33 And 35 Percent Brackets. For 2008, The 25 Percent Bracket Begins At The Taxable Income Level Of $32,550, Which Is The Figure After All Deductions And Exclusions Are Subtracted From Total Earnings. ("2008 Individual Income Tax Rates, Standard Deductions, Personal Exemptions, And Filing Thresholds," www.taxpolicycenter.org, 11/4/07; Andrew Taylor, "Presidential Hopefuls To Vote On Budget," The Associated Press, 3/13/08)

OBAMA'S PROPOSALS TO HELP THE ECONOMY WOULD HURT WORKERS, BUSINESSES AND CREDIT

Today, Obama Touted His Plan To Increase The Tax Burden On U.S. Companies With Foreign Subsidiaries, Which Would Hurt Workers And Make "U.S. Companies Less Profitable And Less Competitive World-Wide":

Obama: "I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Golden, CO, 9/16/08)

The Washington Post Said Obama Would Make It Harder For U.S. Companies "To Compete Abroad -- Ultimately Hurting Workers And Others Here." "Nonetheless, U.S. companies operating abroad already labor under a bigger tax burden than most foreign competitors. Mr. Obama's suggested fix would make it even harder for them to compete abroad -- ultimately hurting workers and others here." (Editorial, "The Export Of Jobs," The Washington Post, 8/17/08)

The Wall Street Journal Said Obama's Proposal Penalizes Most American Companies That Have Subsidiaries Abroad With "A Big Tax Increase." "Under Mr. Obama's plan, 'patriot employers' qualify for a 1% tax credit on their profits. To finance this tax break, American companies with subsidiaries abroad would have to pay the U.S. corporate tax on profits earned abroad, rather than the corporate tax of the host country where they are earned. Since the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35%, while most of the world has a lower rate, this amounts to a big tax increase on earnings owned abroad." (Editorial, "Obama's 'Patriot' Act," The Wall Street Journal, 2/27/08)

• "Put Another Way, U.S. Companies Would Suddenly Have To Pay A Higher Tax Rate Than Their Chinese, Japanese And European Competitors." (Editorial, "Obama's 'Patriot' Act," The Wall Street Journal, 2/27/08)

• "Apparently Mr. Obama Believes That By Making U.S. Companies Less Profitable And Less Competitive World-Wide, They Will Somehow Be Able To Create More Jobs In America." (Editorial, "Obama's 'Patriot' Act," The Wall Street Journal, 2/27/08)

Got it Simon ... again, FactCheck.org and Snopes.com which have largely the same criticism for what Larry has written and are considered by most to be as close to unbiased as we can get in today's media and you give me a list of headlines with support provided by Op-Ed and Editorial pieces?

You got me!

Roger - I'm sorry that The Wall Street Journal, ABC, Factcheck.org and the tax policy centre are not good enough sources for you. I'll try harder next time!! Too funny.

Simon ... don't be sorry.  Simply said, it's curious and quite dumbfounding to be honest that you can completely ignore my DIRECT LINK to FactCheck.org that speaks directly to the email (verbatim) that Larry has posted yet you use FactCheck.org as one of your sources to prove me wrong.

You're right ... I am confused and no it's not funny.

Larry ~ Once again, great post. You certainly know how to stir up the liberals. They are pulling out the hairs, the ones they have left after Sarah Palin...lol

What really scares me about Obama is how he plans to DisArm America. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8TWPchxgio

This is in-disputable, IN HIS OWN VOICE!   Unless you think I spent hours and hours editing it to put the words in his mouth. 

"Thanks so much for the caucus priorities for the great work you have been doing.  As President I will end misguided defense policies and stand with caucus priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.  First, I'll stop spending nine billion a month in Iraq.  I am the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning, and as President, I will end it.  Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.  I will cut investments and unproven missile defense systems.  I will not weaponize space.  I will slow our development of future combat systems and I will institute an independent defense priorities board to insure the quadrennial defense review in not used to justify un-necessary spending.  Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal I will not develop new nuclear weapons.  I will seek a global ban on production of thisle material and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair trigger alert.  And, to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.   You know where I stand I have fought for open, ethical and accountable Government my entire public life.  I don't switch position or make promises That can't be kept.  I don't posture on defense policy and I don't take money from Federal Lobbyist for powerful defense contracts.  As President, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people.  Thanks so much."

I don't know about you guys but I sleep well knowing we have a missile defense system out there.  I also believe that you do not stop development of our military's future combat systems.  And, if this guy thinks Iran is going to honestly go along with his globe without nukes, he is back on the crack!

When we are finally achieving victory in Iraq he wants to pull out.  Here is another sobering video.  I did not think it was necessary to post the text of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

Sleep well my friends:  Our God and Military is watching over us. 

Roger, I think you missed the point... Obama changes tax plans like he changes every other promise... every time he gets in front of a new group, it is different. 

Oddly, according to the links, he wants to keep all of the evil Bush tax cuts that were instituted for the vast majority of taxpayers... even though he keeps saying that Bush didn't cut taxes on anyone but "the rich." 

And the Brookings Institute isn't all it's cracked up to be.  They were saying that the Bush tax cuts would lower revenue... and revenue has increased dramatically as a result of those cuts (especially the high income tax cuts, since those are the people that hire others... creating jobs).  Obama however wants to raise their taxes, which WILL slow the economy. 

He has even said that he knows that increasing taxes on "the rich" won't increase revenue to the treasury. 

Stupid plan.  Bad choice.

Great information and a great disclosure to the facts.  Again, I caution anyone using snopes.com they are no longer a truth or fiction. THey have now changed their position to giving opinions verses facts....not a good source to use. Check out their opinon on DO todays immigrants care less about American pride. Strictly opinion... That was the last time I used them.Keep up the good work Larry.

Vote nobama and save us from worse financial disaster...Guess who will be paying his brillant idea of taxing the corporations.....Oh Of Course the little guy..who in the heck do you think they will pass on the tax increase to by charging us more for the products...It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. It looks like AMerica needs a wake-up call Roger!!!

Larry:  I'm a bit surprised by your reaction here as you usually present what I consider to be reasonable responses to those who don't always necessarily agree with you.  To your credit as well, unlike many, you don't resort to petty name calling to prove a point.  You allow for a higher level of discussion regarding the matter at hand.

I don't fully agree, but I can respect your preference not to use Snopes.com.  Even though, the criticisms are very similar, I'm surprised that you would ignore FactCheck.org.  I've never tried to paint you into a corner as you clearly stated that this was an email that was sent to you.  Regardless of which candidate we are supporting can't we agree this email has no place, no matter how small, in helping to shape an opinion on who we should vote for?  The information is clearly not correct.

Mary:  Your comment, "Great information and a great disclosure to the facts."  really?  Wow ... it's impossible to argue with someone who chooses to ignore what has been clearly and simply written (mind you, not by me by an actual organization).  Again, forget Snopes.com for all those who want to label it a "left wing" organization.  Are you going to say the same for FactCheck.org?

Lane:  I'm again dumbfounded.  Your comment, "Roger, I think you missed the point... Obama changes tax plans like he changes every other promise... every time he gets in front of a new group, it is different."

Are we reading the same blog?  Larry's post started with, "Got this forwarded to me this past week. I can't say that I've sourced out everything."  I could only gather that Larry is interested in the "sourcing" of this email to speak towards its credibility.  I provided additional sources that don't mince any words.  Again, for those who didn't like Snopes.com, I presented FactCheck.org (one of Simon's preferred outlets too!).

FactCheck.org COMPLETELY disagrees with the tax portion of what has been presented in this email going nearly line by line:  http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_obama_tax_my_profits_if_i.html

To reiterate, FactCheck.org state's (regarding the specific Tax portion of the email that Larry has presented):

"Alert readers may already have noted that this chain e-mail does not provide links to any of Obama's actual proposals or cite any sources for the claims it makes. That is because they are made up.This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible to believe that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness on the part of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama's tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate."

Mary:  One last thought ... your comment:

"Vote nobama and save us from worse financial disaster...Guess who will be paying his brillant idea of taxing the corporations.....Oh Of Course the little guy..who in the heck do you think they will pass on the tax increase to by charging us more for the products...It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. It looks like AMerica needs a wake-up call Roger!!!"

It's incredibly hard to believe that you could even make such a point ... how much worse are you expecting things to get?  Which party has been in control of our government for the last seven plus years?  If you voted for Bush, how can you ask me to believe that you have it figured out when you and your leader have it so wrong now?

I do agree with you on one point, America definitely does need a "wake-up" call!