McCain’s new ad: Painful

Comments

  1. Lucky Lady says:

    That’s a great ad. I hope it runs in Wisconsin. Won’t Obama supporters will be surprised when they realize Obama’s cut-off for raising taxes is $42,000? I guess that’s the new “wealthy” he talks about. Everyone’s taxes will have to go up to pay for all the entitlements he is promising.

  2. Does anyone know where that 42k figure comes from?

  3. Here is a brief analysis of the two candidates tax plans; it lists some pros and cons of each approach.
    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411741

    It is difficult to find anything specific that is not also overwhelming in detail. The simplest statement I’ve found about the cut-off for raising taxes is that Obama would raise taxes for the top two brackets, which starts at about 165k for a single person, and 327K for a married couple filing jointly.

    An interesting question is whether price increases that may result from Obama corporate taxes would undue the benefit of, for example, not taxing seniors with incomes of less than 50k.

    McCain plans big cuts in corporate taxes and taxes for the upper income brackets, smaller cuts for the other brackets. Both candidates plans would increase national deficits.

  4. Kathryn, you are looking only at income taxes. There are other taxes that Obama plans to raise that will affect anyone earning over $42,000.

    One source says both would increase the deficit, another that I gave earlier said Obama’s would and McCain’s may. This isn’t a sure thing. What you have to decide is whether or not more of your family’s income should go to create socialism in America.

    I do think it’s that easy.

  5. Does it bother you that the McCampaign is so willing to lie to get themselves elected or have you made your peace with that?

    John McCain, the son of an admiral and the kept-man of an heiress trying to sell wolf tickets down on the corner and cry poormouth has to turn the stomach of any principled voter. This is just another indication of McCain’s willingness to lose his soul to win an election.

  6. Grumps, did your mother know she had named you so well?

    What lie. Specifics, please.

  7. I did mention other taxes and possible effects. I still don’t know where that 42000 came from; it’s just a number tossed out in the ad.

    I don’t think the choice is a simple as socialism or no anymore–maybe it never was, but I used to believe it.

    McCain’s plan has a “rising tide” sort of appeal, but that turned out to be a myth. The rising tide lifted the big boats, swamped the little ones. I have no problem with the rich getting richer, but I have a big problem with the poor getting poorer.

    I get fleeced when money is diverted to the poor. I get fleeced when money is sucked out of circulation and into the vaults of the super rich. As an ethical matter, I have to choose for the poor. But of course, nothing is that simple.

  8. Kathryn, I’m a little bummed that you choose to think 42,000 was “just a number tossed out” in this argument. I could find it for you, but you absolutely wouldn’t care.

    Please stop the charade that you are open to reason. You aren’t. You decided a long time ago.

    Time to own it.

    By the way, in the world’s economy you ARE the super rich. You might want to own that reality, too.

  9. “I get fleeced when money is sucked out of circulation and into the vaults of the super rich.”

    Kathryn, would you care to explain how that is true?

  10. Lucky Lady says:

    Grumps’ description of McCain could almost pass for a description of John Kerry. He was a two-time kept man of two heiresses. Democrats had no trouble voting for him. Could it be that Grumps is confusing Obama’s lies as McCain’s? Obama’s background is finally being revealed and he’s the dishonest one.

  11. It’s just that Democratic Double Standard popping up again, huh?

    Good catch, LL.

  12. Cindy, it wasn’t a dig at you or LL; the number WAS just put out there in the ad, with no explanation beyond ‘Obama will’. Yes, my favorite was decided a long time ago, that doesn’t mean I have total faith in the man or the party (especially not the party). I’m not a True Believer sort, and I’m not a die-hard partisan. I still have an interest in weighing issues.

    If it is ok with you to have a discussion here, I’ll play too. If you just want to argue about something, you’ll have to push a different button–insult my alderman, maybe.

    Grant, I was being hyperbolic–an over simplification. What I meant was that the economy on which most of us depend only works when money is circulating. After a point, what are the super rich going to spend their money on? One can utilize only so many homes or vehicles or services, and the rest of the money is more or less useless. They can invest, build more condos or strip malls, but they accomplish nothing if there are few others with means to partake. When the middle class disappears and we are left with only rich and poor, everything will stagnate.

  13. Then weigh the issues with facts.

    Why don’t you watch the ad again, Kathryn. I’ll give you the link for the $42,000 later.

  14. Here’s another analysis. I think it references a different vote from the one above, but I’m not sure; the above is less complete.
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_deceptions.html

  15. From your last link:

    ” That’s true for a single taxpayer…” So it’s true. Isn’t that the argument? Obama once voted to not continue the current tax reductions. That will in fact increase taxes. The actual wording of the ad: “Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000. He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family.”

    The ad, as you have proved, is accurate. Anything more?

  16. You will stick fast, Mrs. Kilkenny.

  17. I wonder if Kathryn is aware that the rich and super-rich are paying the bulk of the income taxes which finance the socialist programs which I suspect she is in favor of.