McCain in 2000 Defended ‘Progressive’ Taxation from Charge of ‘Socialism’: ‘When You Reach a Certain Level of Comfort, There’s Nothing Wrong with Paying Somewhat More’

It’s nice to see the old McCain, before he sold his soul to the neo-con devil.

That was the old McCain, before he underwent a personality transfer. You remember, the McCain we used to like, the one who still had his honor and credibility intact.

THANK YOU JAKE
Spin this Mccain supporters!

The gang that couldnt shoot straight.

hmmm…so what do the repubs say about this?
i cant wait for this spin.

Robocall that!

I seen this footage before and the Obama camp should definitely use this video against John McCain.
That’s the difference between John McCain 2000 and John McCain 2008.
John McCain 2000 was a maverick. He fought against the Republican elite and the Bush power house.
Fastforward to 2008.
John McCain 2008 is no longer a maverick. He has adopted the Bushpolicies to win the GOP nomination and now has the same people who ran the Bush campiagn in 2000 running his campaign in 2008.
The same people who called Cindy McCain a drug addict and spreaded the rumor McCain had a black child w/ an AA women.
It’s sad. It really is.

Thats the Mccain I liked but he now has sold his soul to the right wing devil

Course, its not inconsistent with lowering or maintaining the current level of progressive taxation rather than expanding it down the road.

So McCain was a socialist before he wasn’t?
LOL. Pathetic loser.

John McCain is not the same John McCain of 2000. He sold his soul to the far right of his party to get the nomination. The “old” John McCain may emerge after losing this election but his credibility is shot. I believe John McCain has always shifted positions…taking one position to get elected and then supporting the opposite once in office. He may call it being a maverick but others would call it unprincipled.

Why is it The Daily Show always finds stuff that the MSM won’t even begin to look for?
Doubt they will bring it up…but they should!

I used to think McCain was a man of honor and integrity. But the way he has conducted this campaign is despicable. “Country First” my ###. He has demonstrated he will do anything, sell anyone out, say anything no matter how outrageous, to get elected.

Yes, that sounds more like the John McCain I contributed to and worked for in 2000.
It also might be nice to have the quotes from McCain’s opposition to Bush’s tax cuts, when he called them “irresponsible” in a time of war.
And in Obama’s plan he is keeping the 01 and 03 Bush brackets for everyone except the very top tier.

“there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more. But at the same time it shouldn’t be totally out of proportion.”
first people who deserve a tax cut are working Americans…and they’re the ones I would support tax cuts for first.”
Not even close jake-in-the-tank.
Obama wants it to be disproportinate. First people on Obama’s list to get a “cut” are those who DO NOT PAY TAXES.

Since MSM won’t explain the difference … McCain isnt against the progressive US tax system and isnt for a flat tax. He is against raising tax rates on some people specifically in order to provide numerous credits to others. McCain’s tax plan is about tax cuts (actually change the rate) and the health insurance tax credit – applies to everyone. Obama’s plan is about increasing the rate on ONE segment of the population and giving the benefits to EVERY OTHER segment.

Jeremy said:
God, that’s sad John Stewart had to be the first to find this. What exactly do you “journalists” do all day.
He IS the most trusted name in news! I choose him over my local 10pm news each night. I would be lost without him.

Obama should use the line “first people who deserve a tax cut are working Americans…and they’re the ones I would support tax cuts for first.” by McCain in a TV ad.

Tax,
Astounding how ignorant the MSM and obamabots are. Jake tapper, are you really that uninformed or just blindly pro-Obama.
McCain’s is answer is what most Americans agree with. McCain is saying a total flat tax is wrong because the wealthy should pay a reasonably higher rate. Nowhere does McCain say he would take that and give to non-tax payers. This is 180 from the socialist plan of Obama.

geevil really?
The past few weeks we have heard about all the Repubs saying Obama wants to tax the people that have “worked their way up” more and give it to the people that make less…so you called him a socialist because of this.
NOW…this comes out about McCain and hes basically saying the same thing..yet hes not a socialist as you say? How does your mind spin like this? I need to know..really i do. I wish I could use it when i bet on my Phillies last night.
“we lost but we really didnt, we actually are up 2-0 in the World Series”

McCain is DESPERATE.

Look at them look at the Mccain supporters spin this to no end and yes John Stewart is the Most trusted name in News!

Great catch Jake! Now go do some investigation on the Berg lawsuit.

Majorajam,
Earned income credit -a refund on tax never paid. 40% pay no federal income tax. Obama would redestribute wealth to them.
Perhaps you ought to get a real education instead of relying on stupid tv show hosts.

Obamabots undressed in all their ignorance. Cannot even follow a simple answer regarding a flat tax.

Nowhere does McCain say he would take that and give to non-tax payers. This is 180 from the socialist plan of Obama.
_________________________________________
Per the McCain campaign Obama’s tax credits “welfare.” and their “tax credits are “reform”.
Obama’s refundable tax credit for mortgage payments has a work requirement.
McCain is pushing a little “welfare” of his own: The centerpiece of his health care plan is a $5,000 tax credit to families. This goes to people regardless of their employment status. Doesn’t that make him a ‘Socialist”?

“Great catch Jake! Now go do some investigation on the Berg lawsuit.”
Mack after being humiliated by Ashley Todd is begging for even more.

What an ignorant argument that non-federal-taxpayers deserve my federal tax money because they pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes.
Well, I pay those taxes as well on top of federal income taxes, so if Obama’s going to hand out $1,000 dollar checks based on that, then shouldn’t I get $2,000?

In 2001 McCain also voted Against Bush’s tax cuts for the rich and large corporations saying that he “could not support them in good conscience”. Now of course he’s a champion of those tax cuts. Glad to see he got over his bout of “socialist tendencies” and came home to the BushGOP!

Marylou – then I fully expect you to be outraged at McCain’s Healthcare Tax credit proposal:
The centerpiece of McCain’s health care plan is a $5,000 tax credit to families. This goes to people regardless of their employment status. Doesn’t that make him a ‘Socialist”?

1) If you’re in a lower tax bracket, you stand to see a bigger tax cut with Obama’s plan. For instance, if you make between $19,000 and $38,000 a year, McCain’s plan gives you a tax break of $113, but Obama’s plan gives a whopping $892 tax break.
2) If you’re in a higher tax bracket, you stand to see a bigger tax cut with McCain’s plan. For instance, if you make between $112,000 and $161,000 a year, McCain’s plan now gives back more at $2,584, while Obama’s tax cut slows down to a mere $2,135.
3) If you make over $250,000 a year, your taxes will go up under Obama’s plan. McCain on the other hand wants to keep the Bush tax cuts for upper income earners.
So, there you go: most Americans will see cuts to their average tax bills with both their plans. The benefits with McCain’s tax plan seem to grow with the more money you make, while the wealthy pay more under Obama’s plan. Despite some differences between the two, there is the same downside to both plans: these tax cuts will only fuel an already large national deficit.
The Tax Policy Center estimates in 10 years, McCain’s proposed tax plan could increase the deficit by as much as $7.4 trillion, and Obama’s plan will increase it a little less — to about $5.9 trillion. In this time of financial crisis — where the government has instituted a stimulus package and is about to bailout big banks with stock purchases and buyouts of distressed assets — maybe the candidates should let Americans know we need some tax hikes to pay for all that. But, everyone knows that’s not how you get elected president in this country.

geevil go look at the IRS’s own statistics on their accuracy of the top 10% of wealth in this country vs…the bottom 90%
the bottom…99% accurate
the top 10% – 70% accurate.
and look at the final numbers of what the top 5% have paid over a 4 decade span…and how slow their tax burden ratio compared to the rest of America.
there has not been proportion to that growth in 40 YEARS.
all in the name of trickle down economics arguments and calling people socialists who have tried to correct that burden growth rate.
during times of national scare especially and down turn…those who reaped the most from this nation should at minimum get their tax ration up to the percentage change that the rest of America has seen over the last 4 decades… at a minimum…
and that is about twice the increase that Obama is asking from them.
so stop and get educated yourself.

golfgirlusa
The tax rate on October 12, 2000 was the the same tax rate that Barack Obama wants to put it back to!

and James danley
who do tyou think dems in congress will overrride quicker
the republican…
or the guy on their team when they say …we can’t tax more.
the handful of dems that might be inclined to propose anything like what you are saying are going to have their own team leader telling them they can’t do that
if mccain said it…they can fight him without losing the support of their own party.
with Obama in office they will lose the support of their own party.
your argument is dumb.

This Clip is about 3 months old. I watched this show at the beginning of summer. Crazy. I love John Stewart.

everyone knows that spending and our financial situation has to be a priority…
they ALL know that…and the handful that don’t are going to get slapped back down if they try to ignore it…
it is a gargantuan pile of cr@p that the republicans left from 6 years of republican rule 2 years ago…
the last 2 has been all about how to recognize where the pieces are …what is still falling…and trying to catch the mess that was made from 2000 to 2006 (plus the Gramm Leachey Bill that was passed by gramm in 99 as soon as the markets realized they could speculate on the new mortgage expansion proposals…just like he did with energy and Enron…as soon as we tried to expand homeownership – which with the regulation architecture that was there before the Gramm Leachey Bill …would have most likely been good for our economy – Gramm shepherded the bill to dismantle that architecture that would have protected us from this mess… same year… go look it up)

Try this out for size
In reviewing McCains comments from the 2000 forum, his point is well-taken. It has been our tradition to support the have nots with the have’s wealth generation. His point in the world of 2008 is “when is enough, enough” Read reality points below……Just remember – capital seeks free markets…the more you constrain a market, it will seek freer markets elsewhere…. the IDES of March 2009, should Obama win, just might be an unemployment rate that hits double digit ceilings….Then Obama can get his dream – an expanded “dependency class” that needs government to figure out their life for them whether that be in terms of a paycheck or a future….it’s my personal nightmare……
John McCain is pouncing on Barack Obama’s call for shifting more wealth from richer Americans to poorer ones, likening it to socialism. His remarks win applause at campaign events. But they ignore the nation’s long tradition of redistributing huge amounts of wealth through tax-and-spending policies.
Placing a heavier burden on the wealthy has been a cornerstone of the federal income tax since its inception in 1913. Under its “progressive” formula, in which the wealthy pay higher tax rates, the richest 5 percent of Americans now pay well over half of all federal income taxes.
Forty percent of Americans pay no federal income tax at all, although it is the government’s largest revenue source. Meanwhile, they benefit from various social programs aimed at low-income households, another feature of a system that redistributes money.

Bud, it was the Republican controlled Congress that passed the Welfare Reform Act three times. President Clinton vetoed the Welfare Reform bill the first TWO times before finally signing it into law the third time.
Whether you admit it or not, allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire IS a tax hike (if your taxes go up that is a tax hike). The question now becomes will the proposed tax cut by a President Obama be a net tax cut or will it be a net tax increase?
Finally, the Bush Administration WANTED the tax cuts to be made permanent. In fact they have called for them to be made permanent every year since their implementation. It was Congress that refused to make them permanent.

Dave
how many times can people say it
yer numbers are bologne
under 250k (200k single) your taxes will not increase and you will most likely get a tax credit.
how many times can they say it.
and how many times can people try to lie to change it.

No one is accusing Barack Obama of being a socialist because he supports a progressive tax. Sen. McCain supports a progressive tax, and he’s not a socialist. The reason Sen. Obama is a socialist is because he wants taxpayers to write checks pay-to-the-order-of nontaxpayers. as if taxpayers don’t have a hard enough time paying their own bills, Barack Obama wants them to pay nontaxpayers’ bills, too.

dl, a President Obama will NOT veto the tax hikes that the Democrats in Congress pass. Sen. Obama SAYS that he wants to raise the top income tax brackets back to where they were when President Clinton was in Congress (the top income tax bracket was 39.6%). However, there are some Democrats in Congress who want to raise the top income tax bracket to a pre-President Kennedy level–NINETY-ONE PERCENT. (NOTE: President Kennedy lowered the top tax bracket to 70%; and President Reagan lowered it to 50% in 1981 and to 33% in 1986. It was under President Clinton that the top tax bracket was raised to 39.6%.)
If you want to take a chance that he will veto the tax hikes go ahead and vote for Sen. Obama. But don’t say you weren’t warned.

James Danley
“However, there are some Democrats in Congress who want to raise the top income tax bracket to a pre-President Kennedy level–NINETY-ONE PERCENT”
WHICH ONES JAMES ? JEEEZ MAKE STUFF UP MUCH!!!
GIVE ME A BREAK!!

If most Americans were still striving to become rich, McCain would probably be doing better.
But most Americans right now are struggling to remain middle class.
McCain just can’t transform himself into the defender of the middle class in the last 11 days of the election.

So, the Obama camps talking points memo is out for the weekend.
Is this at the top of the list?

The New York Times is now junk status. The networks will be next. If the media pulls this off for Obama, then savor it. This will be the last presidential election in which the old media have any influence.

‘Hold on onto your Horse’
“How Low Will the Dow Go if Obama is Elected President and Found Constitutionally Ineligible?
Suppose Barack Obama wins the election and is found to have been Constitutionally ineligible to be President of the United States because he was–as this reporter strongly suspects–born in Kenya? Suppose it is proven that he is not even a citizen–that he was never naturalized–as a credible lawsuit alleges?
How low will the Dow Jones Industrial Average go if the President turns out to be an illegal alien?
Does anyone care?
Apparently not. Not the corrupt Democratic Party–that’s obvious. Not the adoring mainstream media–Obama is their man. Even Fox News treats the lawsuit as a no-go zone (along with Obama’s lost college years, dual US-Indonesian citizenship, and suspected ties to Muslim supremacist Khalid Al-Mansour). Not the mesmerized masses who see Obama as America’s savior.
If the polls are accurate, America is setting itself up for the biggest political–and economic–crash in history.
As Dan Rather might say, hold onto your horses….”

Well…You’ve gotta love politics….One man’s “Socialism” circa 2000 is his competitor’s “Socialism” circa 2008….Actually McCain 2000 really would have been a much better POTUS than Dubya.

This appears to be just breaking:
From TPM:
John McCain’s Pennsylvania communications director told reporters in the state an incendiary version of the hoax story about the attack on a McCain volunteer well before the facts of the case were known or established — and even told reporters outright that the “B” carved into the victim’s cheek stood for “Barack,” according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions.

I sort of figured someone would find a video of McCain contradicting himself. I sure hope news media spread all over.
Go get MCCain for this one!!!

Oh by the way Amy, ask Sarah why she will not release her medical records, I mean if this is not a smear.

dl wrote: “You need to learn your history. Clinton campaigned on Welfare Reform in 1992.”
Yes, President Clinton did campaign on welfare reform when he ran for president in 1992. But that still does not change the fact (or change history) that President Clinton vetoed the Welfare Reform Act on December 6, 1995 and again on January 9, 2006, before finally signing it into law on July 31, 1996.

McCain is no good pinko commie socialist. He should move to Massachusetts.
I bet he pals around with terrorists too.

James Danley -
Okay then, so given the GOP hegemony in Congress from 1994 to 2006, you will accept that they were completely responsible for the decimation of the financial regulatory regime?
Then, I agree with you. They were fully responsible.

I heard that McCain was actually born in the Panama Canal zone! I heard he’s actually a Panama citizen, brainwashed by Manuel Noriega! He’s been lying in wait his whole life to become President so he can launch a Panamanian plot on us all! I heard it on the internets!
Who is this John McCain?! I don’t know about you, but what I read on the internets really have me worried!

Hey HERO, but how many of those Republicans are actually voting for McCain?

Hero?
Bad news for Obama in Colorado early voting //// Uh, Guess again…..
Posted by: HERO | Oct 24, 2008 7:38:33 PM
—————
Are you being ironic or just following the same kind of performance that we see from the McCain campaign?
Your data is evidently very old.
Total Votes in CO so far: 565,962
Party
Dem 38.6%
Rep 37.9%
No/Oth 23.5%
AND the big kicker:
Ballot
Absentee 85.0%
In-person 15.0%
The Obama get out the vote effort is primarily a ground game, it is the GOPers who primarily work the Absentees.
So, with 85% of the vote so far accounting for absentees, the number of GOPers voting is still trailing DEMs.
That means BAD news for the GOP and Team McCain, especially since the independents are trending to Obama big time.
Just as it is bad news in Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, and all the other places where early voting is going on.

Concerned in Ohio: What about if McCain had voted with a President who put us into hock to the Communist Chinese regime – $400 billion dollars in hock (according to the McCain campaign)? And McCain voted with him almost every step of the way? What if the President had sold us to the Chinese to pay for a war in the middle east in which we installed an Islamic Shiite government, where Sharia, or religious law, took precedence over civil law? What if that government was a mirror image of the government of IRAN – so much so that the last ceasefire in Iraq was settled in Iran – not by civil authority, but by clerics (the battle of Basra)? What if that President had put us into hock to the Chinese to support one of the most corrupt governments on the planet – the current Iraqi government? And John McCain was with him every step of the way – and wants to keep marching?

Just because you don’t earn enough to pay “income” taxes doesn’t mean you don’t pay taxes…like sales, property, FIC, Payroll etc.
Plus Obama’s plan states the tax cuts are for 96% of “workers” not just people or voters. That is a spin the McCain campaign put on it just like claiming Bill Ayers said he wished he’d “bombed” more when he actually said he wished he’d “done” more to stop the viet nam war.(That’s when they drafted geeks too and sent them to their deaths fighting in a country that never attacked us as we now know-Tonkin oh my) The only heroes were the ones trying to get their buddies home alive.
Current bail out should include confiscating holdings of all those billions wall streeters profiteered on at our expense. Let’s take back those jets, yachts and malls and $34billions in bonuses given out so greedily. On this McCain decided he would do anything to win and sold his integrity to ambition. Now he’s just a sad little hypocrite learning as we all should that good judgment trumps experience. making bad decisions for 39 yrs is not experience you can believe in but it is a reputation you can believe in. (Palin pick, we are all Georgians now, every lobbyists pet senator on a leash etc.) Calm deliberative, good advised judgment…is Obama. Enough with the old washed up ways. Obama is not the one…he is the “right”
one at the right time and is the relief we’ve waited for. (birth certificate crap has been debunked-see Washington Post) Time to rise above pettiness.

Bud, it was the Democrats and organizations like ACORN that forced the banks to give mortgages with flexible subprime mortgage rates to individuals who could not afford to pay back the loans. Furthermore, since Sen. Obama conducted seminars to ACORN’s new organizers in the 1990s, I wonder if his instruction included the intimidation and extortion techniques that ACORN used to force the banks into giving these high risk loans.
In addition, the Democrats refused to heed the warnings by both the Bush Administration and several GOP Senators, including Sen. McCain, regarding Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s practices back in 2005 and 2006. While the bill passed the committee on a straight party line vote, the Democrats were poised to filibuster the bill if it came out of committee for a vote by the full senate.

Common Sense, Joe Biden said, “If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, it’s a duck.”
Sen. Obama WAS mentored by his “father-figure” Frank Marshall Davis between 1975-1979, when Obama was 14-18 years old. Frank Marshall Davis WAS not only a member of the Communist Party USA, but he WAS an agitator and recruiter for the CPUSA during that time frame. And then Sen. Obama studied under the principles of and even practiced the principles of Saul Alinsky–another Communist–during Sen. Obama’s days as a community organizer.

McCain and Palin have done more for socialism than anybody since Lenin.

Using taxes to redistribute wealth is one of the tenets of capitalism espoused by Adam Smith in the book The Wealth of Nations.
Socialism redistributes the wealth by taking over the factories (property in common, meaning the means of production).
Some people need remedial Political Economy.

Lynne that would only be true if federal income taxes were the only taxes people paid. In fact, if you count all taxes, people who make the least pay the most money in taxes as a percentage of their income. The income tax is the only real progressive tax there is in the US.

James, you are free to think that, but it isn’t true. First of all, it wasn’t the banks that made most of those loans. Most of the sub-prime loans were made by institutions that were not even covered by the Community Reinvestment Act. Secondly, many of the predatory loans you are referring to were made to people who had qualified for a decent rate but they were swindled.

James Danley,
So it was ALL the Democrats fault, and George Bush and the GOP controlled Congress could do nothing but cower in a corner?
You just told me they ran rough shod on Clinton for Welfare Reform.
Which is it, the GOP fully in control or a bunch weak kneed pansies who can’t push through a reform bill under a GOP president?
Well, it turns out it’s more complex than your nice little tale (as I was implying tounge in cheek before). And since I’ve worked in the industry it seems I know a lot more about it than you do. So, I’m fully aware that the old ACORN shell game that Team McCain is playing is just nuts.
If you paid any attention to Alan Greenspan’s testimony this week, he noted that banks lowered their lending standards unilaterally and inexplicably, because it went against their own interests.
Basically it came down to a competition of who could do more loans and deals as banks were in a contest to get bigger (and the flood of mortgage brokers out there wanted the commissions). And flexible rate mortgages were what brokers were pushing to entice people to refi perfectly good fixed rate mortgages. But perhaps you’re not familiar with the mortgage business.
A lot of it was also fueled by demand for CDO (collateralized debt obligations) from investors as these provided higher yields than treasuries AND were supposedly AAA rated (which Fitch, Moody’s, et. al also apologized about this week for the fact that it was not the case).
And FYI that bill you mentioned only changed the regulatory boxes around, it would have done nothing to avert the mortgage lending crisis NOR would it have done anything about the Credit Default Swaps that brought down A.I.G. (Who is the Team McCain fall guy for the CDS fiasco anyway?)
If you look at the press from that time that bill was being hashed out you’ll see that BOTH DEMS and GOPers were for the bill, but the Republican-backed measure would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to sell portfolio assets unrelated to their mortgage securities businesses. A Democratic alternative would have permitted the regulator to reduce the GSEs’ portfolio without requiring such cuts.
So the GOPers didn’t want to allow Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to be able to diversify their assets.
And what would that have done? They would have been sunk even faster if they had to do that.
If that bill had passed in the GOP version and they forced Freddie and Fannie to sell off profitable assets (or ones that weren’t unraveling like the mortgage-backed securities) they would have been bankrupt far earlier than they did.
So, once again (although I was a Republican at that time) the Dems were right and the GOPers were wrong.

Hi Freedom: I’m not too worried about Obama’s records – it’s enough for me that he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. But why did you pretend that I didn’t ask a question? I’ll ask again. Tell me about Sarah Palin’s grades and papers. I’d like to know her grades from her first college in Hawaii, her second college in Hawaii, her time at Northern Idaho, and her )two?) times at the University of Idaho. If you’re a Palin supporter, I’m sure you know something, I mean a little anything about her records there. And what about that “D” in macroeconomcs? How could anybody get a “D” in macroeonomics? Well, Sarah said she did. By golly. So let me know when you get those records. And by the way, why in the world would somebody change colleges so much? And also, I never would have been able to afford to go to school in Hawaii in a million years, and I had good grades. How did a poor girl like Sarah says she is do that? Not by being a beauty queen – that was later.

“Basically it came down to a competition of who could do more loans and deals as banks were in a contest to get bigger (and the flood of mortgage brokers out there wanted the commissions). And flexible rate mortgages were what brokers were pushing to entice people to refi perfectly good fixed rate mortgages. But perhaps you’re not familiar with the mortgage business.”
On point, but I don’t agree with your conclusion. If the mortgage businesses and the banks and everyone related were screaming for these products (for the commissions and ability to sell off packaged securities), then why hold the GSEs responsible for the mess? Had the GSEs not begun to offer the securities that the market demanded, competitors would have taken over “guidelines” and created even more of a mess.
Obama/Biden 08!

Freedom: I’d love to see everyone’s medical records – particuarly John McCain’s. Reporters were allowed 3 hours to read 1000 unnumbered pages. Why the time restriction? If there’s nothing to hide, why not let us see all of his records, physical and mental?
Again, I’m just not too worried about Obama. Lean, young, works out every day. Looks good to me. Sarah Palin looks healthy too. Now Cindy is another story, but we dn’t have to worry about her -

Mara,
“Common Sense: Thanks! Now please explain to me how you spend $22,800 on a make-up artist in two weeks time. I honestly don’t get that one. But Sarah Palin’s make-up artist is the highest paid person on the entire McCain staff, so far, for the month of October. That is one heck of a lot of makeup.”
You’re welcome and that’s an easy question. :-)
The GOP/Republican Party/Republican doners don’t have too much “common sense”.
Good looks hardly require a ton of makeup or a ton of money to sustain the “image”. Just goes to show what those out-of-touch people still think about us health consciouse, educated-hungry Americans.
Lipstick on a pig (policies AND ideology) is just not gonna fly!
Obama/Biden 08!

So Jake (and Jon) – got any funnies on Obama back in 2000?
Oh that’s right. Blank Slate.
How convenient.

Obama’s plan IS NOT SOCIALISM people learn your Economics 101!!! Socialism dictates a wealth distribution based on GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION not taxation.
READ YOUR ADAM SMITH!! THE FOUNDER OF FREE MARKET CAPITALISM. Here’s a brief snippet from Wiki but seriously, people, pick up a economic textbook and learn for yourselves:
“Smith did not believe that the luxury of the rich was a great benefit to society, when set against the hardships of the poor, and he is often cited as the source of the modern idea of progressive taxation, which he advocated on grounds of fairness. In his discussion of taxes in Book Five, he wrote:
“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
And just as far as the Common Sense Test: Why would WARREN BUFFET back Socialism???!!!!

Lynne,
“What percentage should those top two brackets be set up? Depending on whose statistics you use, anywhere from 33% to 40% of all workers pay no federal income taxes at all, and the top 3% of tax payers pay approximately 40% of all revenue collected by the Treasury.”
But, you neglected to mention that a PERSON making the same income as a “BUSINESS” will not get the same tax breaks as a business. The middle class is TAXED in favor of business and THAT needs to stop. Businesses making $250K should begin to figure out ways to GROW their businesses regardless of tax breaks. A higher tax on them for NOT thinking about that aspect of business is in order.
Businesses will either have to buy stuff they can write off (stimulates the economy) or figure out how to GROW their businesses to avoid the tax. It has been proven that they are not motivated to GROW while simply leaning on tax breaks to stay afloat under Republican policies. In fact, they only sought to cheapen the costs related to labor (insourcing/outsourcing/discrimination) instead of trying to figure out how to make better products or services to command sustainable incomes for both themselves and their labor forces. Worrying about the tax aspect of business is the lazy-minded’s world view. You can’t hire people on the $2K increase in taxes you’re running from and probably won’t feel any way.
Statistically, eight years of wage-suppression and record unemployment supports my conclusion.
You don’t want to pay minimum wages. You don’t want to pay your fair share of the taxes. You only want the tax breaks (but you’re the only one that gets to write off buying personal stuff like $150K wardrobes for Palin).
That is non-sensical republican principles if you ask me!
Obama/Biden 08!

Bud,
“I was talking about retail lending practices there. What you mention about the GSE’s sounds right too. There are, obviously other players since they dont cover 100% of the market. And as the case was there was MORE trouble in Non-GSE securitizers than with the GSE’s.”
With you on that, too. The GSEs are actually getting screwed over because of the practices they had no control over. That’s where the regulatory controls were needed. Sampling could have been done better — especially on the RETAIL SIDE.
I’ve witnessed unthinkable fraud on the customer and selling side of this crappy market. The good thing is that most of the bubble-exploiters have gone out of business. The bad side is that the subprimes will get MORE business because they screwed decent people over and used the credit system to do it.
The credit system rewarded those that *would flip instead of those that would fight tooth and nail to pay their creditors. Obama fights this unfairness in the credit system by forcing this system to limit its greed.
I really believe that once people get over their fears of seeing the “big ballers” lose, they will get back to using their common sense to make sound investment decisions (instead of relying on out-of-touch, commission-based Wall Street analysts). In those decisions, they’ll regain their confidence in the housing market since a roof over one’s family’s head is usually a top priority AND the epitomy of the American dream.
People WILL buy houses again. Inevitable!
Obama/Biden 08!

Freedom: I just watched Sarah Palin’s policy speech and boy, now I would REALLY like to see her college records. She made fun of funding for people who work on silly things like “fruit flies.” Like the studies on fruit flies that geneticists use to try to isolate markers for disease? Like the fruit flies that are helping scientists get closer to understanding autism – John McCain’s favorite disease and is close to Sarah Palin’s heart because her sister’s child has autism? Why doesn’t someone with a high school education read this woman’s speeches? They study fruit flies in high school biology. She did take high school biology, didn’t she?

Mccain you liar! You have destroyed GOP. Life Long Republican here, but will be voting for OBAMA. Yes, do you get it. OBAMA is getting my vote and my friends votes. This GOP is not what we used to have. Get LOST!

McCain should have jumped ship to the Democrats when they tried to woo him over and then he wouldn’t have to be selling his soul to have won the nomination and to try to win the Presidency as he is today and has been for awhile. The old McCain would have kept Murphy on board ; picked his first choices of Ridge or Lieberman as VP opposed the bailout until they came back with one with some regulatory teeth in it and no pork; wouldn’t be listening to Hannity and Limbaugh and waging a campaign that he knows is not dignified. If he wouldv’e been the old McCain though then there would be no real true blue conservative in the this race but at least he would have lost , if he wouldv’e , with some dignity. I like McCain and I believe that McCain believes what he said in 2000 more than what he says right now but it’s irrelevent because he’s calling the shots and he’s pandering to the very people he’s had disdain for, the far right and I think when this is all said and done he’ll have some real soul searching he will need to do and ask himself whether it was worth it and whether if he had been true to himself there wouldv’e been a different outcome.

Say it aint so, John! You mean you were for “socialism” and “spreading the wealth” before you were against it?
Like you were against off-shore drilling before you were for it?
Like you were against torture before you thought it was sorta okay?
Like you were for emigration reform and a “path to citizenship” before you figured out that the wing nuts didn’t like it?
Like you were against the Bush tax cuts before you were for them?
Like you were for a “respectful, civil campaign” “without personal attacks” before you started running one of the sleaziest campaigns in modern history?
“Who is John McCain?” Does this man have any core principles left other than saying or doing whatever he thinks will work at the moment?

Great post Brooklyn Democrat!! I agree with you 100%.

Brooklyn Democrat wrote: “I fail to understand what’s wrong with organizing and uniting people to advance their interests and get their needs met.”
When there is a deeper underlying agenda then it is nothing more than exploitation.
If you recall, there was a young German man in the 1930s who organized and united his people to advance “their interests and get their needs met.” But in doing so, he advanced his own agenda. The end justified the means.
The same can be said of ACORN. Their stated goals are commendable. But they have a very socialist underlying agenda. Take ACORN’s goal of having the poor and lower income individuals owning their own home. There is no question that living in your own home is far better then living in public housing. BUT to that end they intimidated and extorted the banks to lower their lending standards — greatly interfering with the free market and shattering our economy. What ACORN could have done was convince developers to donate 1%-5% of every home they build to a poor family. The developers would have received a tax break and a poor or low income family would have only had to worry about paying their utilities and property taxes instead of a 30-year mortgage.
Take voter registration for example. ACORN’s goal of registering millions of unregistered voters is commendable. BUT they target a specific demographic who is more inclined to sympathize with their liberal socialist agenda. And they demean the entire election process when they encourage voter registration fraud by their threatening the people they hire to register voters to meet specific quotas or be fired.
Now as for Sen. Obama, he has been influenced by socialists and communists his entire life. He intentionally surrounded himself with these individuals. Many of these individuals not only hold strong anti-America and anti-Capitalist views but they have been activists in advocating those views.
Call it what you want. I just believe the American people deserve to know who the real Barack Obama is.

Trying to deflect and confuse the issue by trying to twist things so as to fit Sen. McCain into a definition of socialism it a neat trick. The problem is there is a huge difference between stealing from the wealthy to spread the wealth among the poor and middle class and spreading the opportunity for the poor and middle class to become wealthy.

Maria,
I think you may be misunderstanding Obama’s tax plan. The 95% are not going to stop paying taxes. They (we) will still pay taxes, although many will get a tax cut. Meanwhile, the wealthy will have their taxes raised back to the pre-Bush levels of the 1990s.

Watch out everybody…..remember Daddy Bush..”NO NEW TAXES”….McCain is still sounding like a Bush…..I am totally in favor of spreading the wealth around. Yes I work and have worked for over 35 years…never have been on Welfare. I think John and Cindy might be worried about their own elite pocketbooks not mine. By the way I am WHITE and I am for OBAMA

Maria saya:
“I must have missed something, because I don’t see where this compares to Obama wanting the top 1 to 5 percent paying all the taxes and not making 95% of us pay anything.”
Geez…you missed a LOT, Maria! If this is what passes for logical reasoning among Americans, no wonder McCain still has a chance to be President!
Obama is not talking about ELIMINATING taxes for 95% of Americans. He is talking about REDUCING them.
What passes for “thinking” among my fellow Americans really frightens me!

Dear Bama Zombies. Have fun giving you money away to the rest of the country in the next 4 years. Nobama won’t last longer than that….