"Myth" may be a poor word. Obama recieved over 120k from individuals, not the PACs. Those donated only 6k. The top three recievers of PAC funds from Fannie/Freddie were republicans. (Of course PACs have limitations, and Obama has only been through one election cycle) McCain received over 70k from Freddie Mac Director Geoffrey Boisi, which is not reflected in any of the numbers commonly reported at all. It's outright distortion to say he's heavily financed by said companies. That's not to say it's acceptable, but calling it "kickbacks" and lampooning him about it is disingenuous.
This is from the Cato Institute, wes. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4638 Federal Failure in New Orleans by Doug Bandow Doug Bandow, a former special assistant to president Ronald Reagan, is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC. Added to cato.org on September 8, 2005 George W. Bush a serious person? It's not a question to ask lightly of a decent man who holds the US presidency, an office worthy of respect. But it must be asked. No one "anticipated the breach of the levees" due to Hurricane Katrina, he said, after being criticised for his administration's dilatory response to the suffering in the city of New Orleans. A day later he told his director of the Federal Emergency Management Administration, Michael Brown: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job". Doug Bandow, a former special assistant to president Ronald Reagan, is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC. Is Bush a serious person? The most important duty at the moment obviously is to respond to the human calamity, not engage in endless recriminations. But it is not clear that this President and this administration are capable of doing what is necessary. They must not be allowed to avoid responsibility for the catastrophe that has occurred on their watch. Take the President's remarkable assessment of his Government's performance. As Katrina advanced on the Gulf coast, private analysts and government officials warned about possible destruction of the levees and damage to the pumps. A year ago, with Hurricane Ivan on the move - before veering away from the Big Easy - city officials warned that thousands could die if the levees gave way. Afterwards the Natural Hazards Centre noted that a direct strike would have "caused the levees between the lake and city to overtop and fill the city 'bowl' with water". In 2001, Bush's FEMA cited a hurricane hit on New Orleans as one of the three top possible disasters facing the US. No wonder that the New Orleans Times-Picayune, its presses under water, editorialised: "No one can say they didn't see it coming." Similarly, consider the President's belief that his appointee, Brown, has been doing a great job. Brown declared on Thursday - the fourth day of flooding in New Orleans - that "the federal Government did not even know about the convention centre people until today". Apparently people around the world knew more than Brown. Does the head of FEMA not watch television, read a newspaper, talk to an aide, check a website, or have any contact with anyone in the real world? Which resident of New Orleans or Biloxi believes that Brown is doing "a heck of a job"? Which person, in the US or elsewhere, watching the horror on TV, is impressed with the administration's performance? Indeed, in the midst of the firestorm of criticism, including by members of his own party, the President allowed that "the results are not acceptable". But no one has been held accountable for anything. The administration set this pattern long ago: it is constantly surprised and never accountable. The point is not that Bush is to blame for everything. The Kyoto accord has nothing to do with Katrina: Kyoto would have a negligible impact on global temperatures even if the Europeans complied with it. Nor have hurricanes become stronger and more frequent in recent decades. Whether extra funding for the Army Corps of Engineers would have preserved the levees is hardly certain and impossible to prove. Nor can the city and state escape responsibility for inaction if they believed the system to be unsafe. Excessive deployment of National Guard units in the administration's unnecessary Iraq war limited the flexibility of the hardest-hit states and imposed an extra burden on guard members who've recently returned from serving overseas. But sufficient numbers of troops remained available elsewhere across the US. The real question is: Why did Washington take so long to mobilise them? The administration underestimated the problem, failed to plan for the predictable aftermath and refused to accept responsibility for its actions. Just as when the President took the US and many of its allies into the Iraq war based on false and distorted intelligence. Then the administration failed to prepare for violent resistance in Iraq. The Pentagon did not provide American soldiers with adequate quantities of body armour, armoured vehicles and other equipment. Contrary to administration expectations, new terrorist affiliates sprang up, new terrorist recruits flooded Iraq and new terrorist attacks were launched across the world, including against several friends of the US. In none of these cases has anyone taken responsibility for anything. Now Hurricane Katrina surprised a woefully ill-prepared administration. President Bush and his officials failed in their most basic responsibility: to maintain the peaceful social framework within which Americans normally live and work together. Bush initially responded to 9/11 with personal empathy and political sensitivity. But his failures now overwhelm his successes. The administration's continuing lack of accountability leaves it ill-equipped to meet equally serious future challenges sure to face the US and the rest of the world.
The problem is that the 80K cap on social security tax goes away, with additional amounts for 200K. So if you make over 80K your social security tax dries up. I'm also not in favor of windfall taxes and the fact he wants to change the rules on munis.
TJ - when I said I wanted thoughts from Clutchfans, I forgot to add "except Trader Jorge". You can feel free to exit this thread as you don't contribute in a productive way. Bye.
Rhadamanthus and Viggins -- Thanks for the input. I think that helps refine thinking. I guess I should say that on Fiscal policy, I expect that McCain will be more conservative than Obama. I guess its not realistic to believe that McCain will be a traditional conservative on fiscal issues and size of government, but he will be to the right of Obama.
It's a tough problem. I'm selfish by nature. Most of us are. A vote for Obama is against my personal financial interests, but as I get older, I guess I care more about the greater good.
Good luck on making your choice. It is awesome that you are taking the time to look through all the issues and soliciting opinion from others. I think our country needs more people like you. FWIW, I consider Obama to be the lesser of two evils, though not by a whole lot.
RE: Social Security, that's not true. The only increase is for those making over $200,000 and it's only a 2-4% increase. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/seniors/ You didn't answer my question though. If people really voted their pocket books, Obama would win this election by a landslide. Not only does Obama's tax plan hugely favor the poor and middle class, it's more fiscally responsible. The question still stands though, at this point in American history where the middle class is on a continued decline... do you vote for what you believe is more beneficial to you personally or do you vote for what's best for your country? Anyways, here are the facts on taxes. Some of you might think Obama's tax plan hurts you when in fact it doesn't. Some of you might think Obama's tax plan is less fiscally responsible than McCain's plan when in fact is more. What they'll do to your tax bill McCain and Obama want to change the bottom-line effects of the tax code. Here's a dollars-and-cents breakdown of what their plans could mean for you. By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer Last Updated: June 11, 2008: 3:59 PM EDT http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news..._tpc/index.htm NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- John McCain and Barack Obama have starkly different philosophies about tax policy - how to raise the revenue needed to support government programs, spur growth and ensure economic fairness. But voters really want to know one thing: How would the presidential candidates' views trickle down to their tax bills? A report released Wednesday by a nonpartisan policy group in Washington, D.C., takes a big first step toward answering that question. According to the Tax Policy Center's findings, the common assumptions most people make about the plans of McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and Obama, the Democrats' pick, are not wildly off-base. McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else. Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most - in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income - are in the lowest income groups. Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion. The reason: neither plan would raise the amount of revenue expected under current tax policy - which assumes all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire by 2011. And neither plan would raise enough to cover expected government costs during those 10 years. "Distributionally, they're markedly different. But in terms of their impact on revenue, the two plans are not terribly different," said Roberton Williams, principal research associate at the Tax Policy Center and the former deputy assistant director for tax analysis at the Congressional Budget Office. A closer look In addition to making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, McCain says he would double the exemption for dependents, lower the corporate tax rate, make expensing rules more generous for small businesses and lessen the bite of the estate tax and Alternative Minimum tax. The net result: compared with their tax bill today, taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $1,200. That means their after-tax income would rise by 2%. But those in the lowest income groups would only see their after-tax income rise by less than 1% (or between $19 and $319). By contrast, the highest-income households - those with incomes of at least $603,000 - would see a boost in after-tax income of 3.4%, or more than $40,000. Obama's plan would keep the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place for everyone except those making more than roughly $250,000, and he would increase the capital gains tax. Obama would also introduce new tax breaks for lower and middle-income groups. Such breaks include expanding the earned income tax credit, giving those making less than $150,000 a $500 tax credit per person on the first $8,100 in income, giving those making under $75,000 a 50% federal match on the first $1,000 of savings, and exempting seniors making less than $50,000 from having to pay income tax. Like McCain, Obama would lessen the bite of the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax, but to a lesser degree. The net result: compared with their tax bill today, taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $160 under Obama's plan. That means their after-tax income would rise by 0.3%. But those in the lowest-income groups would enjoy the biggest after-tax income rise as a percentage of income - between 2.4% and 5.5% (worth between $567 and $1,042). By contrast, the highest-income households - those with at least $603,000 in income - would see a dramatic decline in their after-tax income - a drop of 8.7%, or $116,000. MCCAIN OBAMA Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885 $603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974 $227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12 $161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789 $112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204 $66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290 $38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042 $19K-$38K -$113 -$892 Under $19K -$19 -$567
Again, I have to ask, is this number a change compared to current actual taxes paid or what taxes would be paid once the Bush tax cuts expire?
The article says the following so it appears it's the change from your 2008 taxes. Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm
