Obama answers McCain on deficit with a shrug

posted at 8:31 pm on July 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

John McCain pledged yesterday to balance the budget by 2013.  Barack Obama responded by claiming that it can’t be balanced, and he can’t be bothered to try:

Not only does Obama say he won’t eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he’s not sure he’d bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans.

“I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America’s families,” Obama told reporters this week when asked if he’d match McCain’s pledge.

So what is more important in tough economic times? For the government to spend more to help hard-hit Americans or to eliminate a deficit that can lead to higher borrowing costs and slow the economy?

The best policy would be to keep government from interfering with capital that can create new opportunities.  In this particular slowdown, strengthening the dollar would also be a good idea.  Blithely ignoring the deficit — and in fact proposing massive expansions of federal spending — will both weaken the dollar and burden Americans even more than now.

Democrats have complained for years about the Bush administration deficits.  In fact, they routinely use that as one argument against the Iraq war, claiming that it has exploded the deficit.  Now are the Democrats about to say that the deficit is of no consequence at all, and that spending shouldn’t rely on financing?  They insisted on pay-go in 2007, although they broke their own rules in the 2008 budget.

Nedra Pickler tries casting the two campaigns as both spending more than current levels, but there is a large difference between the McCain and Obama spending plans.  Obama would add almost $300 billion in new spending each year, while McCain would add less than $20 billion, and McCain has at least outlined cuts to balance them.  The difference becomes more significant with Obama’s stated indifference to the deficit, now and in the future.

This time, Obama won’t just execute a flip-flop for himself.  He’s about to force the entire party to do a 180 on deficit spending.  When do the backflips cease with Obama?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America’s families …

Dem code for tax and spend.

Tony737 on July 8, 2008 at 8:35 PM

“The cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and states of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. . . . If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we’d see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.”

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/

drjohn on July 8, 2008 at 8:38 PM

I think that qualifies as another.

drjohn on July 8, 2008 at 8:39 PM

[drjohn on July 8, 2008 at 8:38 PM]

LOL. Obama is willing to surrender to hidden domestic enemies without preconditions.

Dusty on July 8, 2008 at 8:46 PM

Well, let us see how the Democrats are doing so far……


Underfunded, overspent, and chock-full of unrealistic mandates, the entire enterprise appears on the brink of failure………….

I can hear Obama now…………..

“….. that’s not the budget I used to know.”

Seven Percent Solution on July 8, 2008 at 8:48 PM

Not sure who’s the bigger joke. McCain is full of it- there’s no way to balance the budget in 4 years given the deficits massive size and the current tax rates. You can’t have it both ways- and no politician is brave enough to tell people the truth.

bayam on July 8, 2008 at 8:48 PM

…he frankly says he’s not sure he’d bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans.

Which will most certainly require substantial tax increases.

Once he has more tax revenue, he’ll spend, spend, spend, spend until he finally realizes that increased taxes will result in decreasing revenue over time.

BacaDog on July 8, 2008 at 8:49 PM

He’ll decimate the military to pay for his social welfare universal healthcare handout.

He’ll do for healthcare what the dumbs have done for energy prices, the travel industry, auto industry, and food prices.

Look to Detroit Mich. to see what Obamas vision for America will look like.

Where does Obama stand on slave reparations I didn’t own any and I don’t want to pay for any.

dhunter on July 8, 2008 at 8:52 PM

“New Opportunities?”

Bill Clinton created 22 million new American jobs in his 8 years in charge…little Bush created less than 5 million new jobs.

The “New Opportunities” are all in China these days, thanks to the Republicans Krony Kapitalism.

And yet poor folks keep votin’ for ‘em.

Always a mystery.

Good thing the Dems extended unemployment benefits.

alphie on July 8, 2008 at 8:56 PM

I was listening to Hannity today and he had some SmAkTard blathering on about renewable energy and what not. Hannity asked him why don’t you and yer liberal buddies go ahead and develop some new technology to get us out of this energy crunch. The guy says ‘There’s no FUNDING for it because WE SPEND ALL OUR MONEY ON THE WAR’!!!’ No one can take any kind of initiative unless they can get government funding??? Hannity made the very good point that if there was viable, realistic technology to be developed, good old free market Capitalism would take care of it. He also went on to point out the obvious: Liberals expect the Government to solve all of society’s problems. And they can’t do that without taxing the living hell out of we the people.

I swear I cannot for the life of me, figure out how these people think…

BigWyo on July 8, 2008 at 8:57 PM

Where does Obama stand on slave reparations

Brilliant question. I’d love for someone to ask him that (and McCain too).

Oh. I forgot. Bambi doesn’t answer questions. No press, no debates, just the script.

BacaDog on July 8, 2008 at 8:58 PM

I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America’s families …

Every Democrat proposal actually seems more like subsidizing consumption than investment. Of course, their entire party and its followers are so illiterate about finance that the distinction is probably lost on them anyway.

Still, a good Republican ad would be this statement from Obama, with video of the slums he allocated “investment” funds to on behalf of his developer buddies.

venividivici on July 8, 2008 at 8:58 PM

dhunter on July 8, 2008 at 8:52 PM

LOL. My family census/slave records are posted on Ancestry dot com. Guess I better get out the file-wipe program.

You are correct about stripping the military. He has already made that promise (Feb 29). Should the heat get turned up on the war we are going to be in a world of hurt. Not just militarily. Maybe I better start stockpiling cardboard.

Limerick on July 8, 2008 at 8:58 PM

No we can’t?

ctmom on July 8, 2008 at 8:59 PM

How do you strenghten the dollar anyway?

ThePrez on July 8, 2008 at 9:08 PM

This is where I give Dems credit. They come to tax and spend and they do it. They are in the majority, however slight.

Repubs come to cut taxes and stop spending. They cut taxes and outspend Dems. They are in the minority, hopefully the polls are wrong, with the minority deficit getting bigger in November.

There’s a lesson in here. I wonder what it is? Oh that’s right, you make a left at the “bridge”.

patrick neid on July 8, 2008 at 9:10 PM

And yet poor folks keep votin’ for ‘em.

Always a mystery.

Good thing the Dems extended unemployment benefits.

alphie on July 8, 2008 at 8:56 PM

When Kindergarten hours are over, we’ll talk maturely about who votes for whom, and why.

Entelechy on July 8, 2008 at 9:13 PM

Bill Clinton created 22 million new American jobs in his 8 years in charge…little Bush created less than 5 million new jobs.

alphie on July 8, 2008 at 8:56 PM

alphie? I have something to tell you. Are you sitting down? Don’t panic.

Presidents don’t create jobs.

Leftists are hopeless.

misterpeasea on July 8, 2008 at 9:17 PM

Bill Clinton created 22 million new American jobs in his 8 years in charge…little Bush created less than 5 million new jobs.

Correlation is not causation. The President’s not standing in front of a huge control panel marked “The Economy.”

I will give Bill Clinton good marks for breaking with party orthodoxy on the economy, and not trampling all over the expansion. Obama is not Clinton, however.

DrSteve on July 8, 2008 at 9:18 PM

McCain needs to change the way he talks about this. If it’s a contest of who will promise the most spending, Democrats will win every time. And the Republican brand on fiscal responsibility has been ruined by Bush and the Tom DeLay Congress. It’s got to be promoted as America paying off the credit cards before going back to the mall on another spending spree.

Most Americans, especially all those Baby Boomers nearing retirement and/or facing gigantic college tuition bills, understand that as individuals and as a nation we have been borrowing too much and saving too little. We’re paying for it now, with a collapsed dollar, a mortgage and student loan crisis, and looming inflation. We need some real “straight talk” in this campaign that says America and Americans have got to start paying off those credit cards and saving. We have got to stop spending money on stuff we don’t need and can’t afford. We have got to restore confidence in our currency. Obama’s plans will send the dollar into free-fall and cause a stampede of investors away from the U.S. They will increase the cost of buying a home, paying for college, and everything else that middle-class Americans expect to be doing in the next 4 years. We can’t afford a spending binge on universal health care, massive Peace Corps programs for yuppie college graduates, subsidies for ACORN, etc. etc.

rockmom on July 8, 2008 at 9:23 PM

Here’s Liberals Tax and Spend,on CNN the debate!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPZaF-ToGxE

Obama mentions McCain,Politico Debate!

canopfor on July 8, 2008 at 9:32 PM

McCain can’t (well, he could but he won’t be able to get Congress to go along) balance the budget in four years but the fact that he is concerned about the red ink – about in particular entitlement programs – at the very least gives up something to focus on.

He has a history of going after earmarks and pork spending. Obviously, those are minor contributors to the deficit but, like the broken window theory of law enforcement, reining in these ancillary expenditures sends a signal to Congress – and to the public – of concern about the larger spending.

To completely ignore the deficit and debt – to use the “invest in families” bromides – is far worse.

We’ve got a clear choice this November.

SteveMG on July 8, 2008 at 9:32 PM

When Kindergarten hours are over, we’ll talk maturely about who votes for whom, and why.

Entelechy on July 8, 2008 at 9:13 PM

…. I didn’t want to be the first one, but you wrote the words right out of my keyboard.

Seven Percent Solution on July 8, 2008 at 9:33 PM

A couple of other points.

Barack is for reparations with a little spin. Rather than give money directly to Blacks he wants to direct it into the Black community through bogus grants and education. Let’s just call it the Guilt Trip program. His crushed church, over there under the bus, was a very big proponent of this as part of it’s Black Liberation theme. Don’t let those drums in the background bother you. Just kidding, just kidding.

Barack has already indicated he will be gutting the military along the same lines that Clinton did. Clinton clipped the Pentagon to the tune of 2 trillion. Barack will out do him. As always, the next Repub President has to amp up spending creating yet another deficit as the military cycle for equipment has to be renewed or the whole mess just lies in a heap breaking down at every turn. Reagan and Bush come to mind.

Say what you will about it but it’s exactly what his supporters want. The Dems in Congress are drooling at the thought. Now if he were to flip on any of this, then I think we would see our first genuine outrage. Not this faux tripe we have been witnessing to date.

patrick neid on July 8, 2008 at 9:36 PM

because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America’s families

.
That would be the Black Liberation Theology ‘changes’ he studied for 20 years coming to fruition.
There’s your hope and change people, depending on your neighborhood.

shooter on July 8, 2008 at 9:40 PM

Bill Clinton created 22 million new American jobs in his 8 years in charge…little Bush created less than 5 million new jobs.

Yep, I distinctly remember that time I got a call from a hiring manager telling me to show up to work because Bill Clinton had personally created a job for me.

The “New Opportunities” are all in China these days, thanks to the Republicans Krony Kapitalism.

More US jobs have been lost due to automation than the labor cost arbitrage with China. Do you want to stop technological development, too?

venividivici on July 8, 2008 at 9:40 PM

“investments” – there’s the key buzzword.

We learned that one a long time ago Barack. Invest your own damn money.

CP on July 8, 2008 at 9:40 PM

The missile defense crap we spents tens of billions on and them stealth bombers really came in handy fighting Al Qaeda, eh, Patrick?

The right needs to admit that defense spending is just welfare payments to rural America and southern states before we have a chance at balancing the budget again.

alphie on July 8, 2008 at 9:43 PM

An even larger deficit? How does that help Michelle’s kids?

aunursa on July 8, 2008 at 9:49 PM

Curiouser and curiouser!

jeanie on July 8, 2008 at 9:52 PM

alphie on July 8, 2008 at 8:56 PM

Per the BLS website, for 1992 Employment, 16yo and over, annualized was 118M. For 2000, it was 136M. For 2007 it was 146M. It’s moved up only slightly by June this year 146.5M

You really ought to quote sources, not your nutroot/ANSWER talking points. I left you the opportunity to impress us with going there, getting the numbers for “20yo and over” which is slightly more meaningful and report back to us. Warning: adding two numbers together — Men and Women — might be required.

Dusty on July 8, 2008 at 9:55 PM

Barack throws the deficit under The Bus.

Economy to follow…

profitsbeard on July 8, 2008 at 9:58 PM

Keep it down in the playpen alphie.

Putting aside your strawman–al quitter–the stealth bombers have been wonderful additions

“To date, stealth aircraft have been used in several low- and moderate-intensity conflicts, including Operation Desert Storm, Operation Allied Force and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In each case they were employed to strike high-value targets which were either out of range of conventional aircraft in the theater or which were too heavily defended for conventional aircraft to strike without a high risk of loss. In addition, because the stealth aircraft do not have to evade surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft artillery over the target they can aim more carefully and thus are more likely to hit the target and not cause as much collateral damage. In many cases they were used to hit the high value targets early in the campaign (or even before it), before other aircraft had the opportunity to degrade the opposing air defense to the point where other aircraft had a good chance of reaching those critical targets.”
“In 1991, F-117s were tasked with attacking the most heavily fortified targets in Iraq and were the only jets allowed to operate inside Baghdad’s city limits.”

And lets not forget alphie that you survived as a human shield only because of how accurate their munitions are. I mean really dude!

patrick neid on July 8, 2008 at 10:02 PM

You borrowed some of Clinton’s jobs and gave ‘em to Bush, Dusty.

Here’s an easier chart to read:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/job-creation/

No economic “experts” from the right have challenged his data…

The F-117s are being moth-balled, patrick….the B-2s ought to be scrapped.

Nothing they can do that cruise missiles can’t do better and cheaper.

alphie on July 8, 2008 at 10:07 PM

Inflation is a tax on cash. It’s totally controlled by the government, and it robs the value of dollar-denominated assets.

A huge driver for inflation is deficit spending. If government deficits are spent on real assets (e.g. highways, dams), then there will be additional value in the economy to equal out the additional greenbacks printed. But if deficit spending is used for transitory purposes (e.g. welfare), then the result will be more greenbacks chasing the same value — AKA “inflation”.

That’s why Dems always talk about their pork programs as “investment” — they’re hoping that, by labeling it as such, people won’t realize that every dollar spent that is not funded by a designated tax is going to be funded by inflation.

It is a truism that you end up with less of anything you tax. In the 70′s, with high inflation rates, just about any interest paid was deductible. Cash was taxed, but debt wasn’t — so everyone went into hock up to their eyeballs. Drying out from that bender took decades. Is it really such a good idea to go down that path again, when already there is a credit crunch in the market?

cthulhu on July 8, 2008 at 10:07 PM

Seven Percent Solution on July 8, 2008 at 9:33 PM

You must have an intelligent keyboard :)

alphie, don’t worry – they’ll come in handy sooner than you think.

Entelechy on July 8, 2008 at 10:07 PM

alphie

There not being mothballed. They are being retired to a nice senior community to enjoy the life they deserve. In plane years they are old having been around since 1980.

And lets not forget the real benefit that they have brought to tens of millions of people worldwide–Titanium golf clubs.

You have much to learn grasshopper!

patrick neid on July 8, 2008 at 10:19 PM

The F-117s are being moth-balled,
alphie on July 8, 2008 at 10:07 PM

Nah. Ain’t you heard? The Air Force went green. They are being recycled into F35s.

Limerick on July 8, 2008 at 10:30 PM

Not sure who’s the bigger joke. McCain is full of it- there’s no way to balance the budget in 4 years given the deficits massive size and the current tax rates. You can’t have it both ways- and no politician is brave enough to tell people the truth.

bayam on July 8, 2008 at 8:48 PM

Balancing the budget is not the same as eliminating the deficit. Think about the difference for a second and then realize Obama is saying we cant balance the budget in 4 years.

Resolute on July 8, 2008 at 10:32 PM

Bill Clinton created 22 million new American jobs in his 8 years in charge
alphie on July 8, 2008 at 8:56 PM

Wow. Where did he ever find the time to look over 22 million job application forms and hire all the people to fill the 22 million jobs he created.

Just think of all the interns he had to hire to help him with the paperwork.

wise_man on July 8, 2008 at 10:37 PM

When do the backflips cease with Obama?The day after he loses.

Mojave Mark on July 8, 2008 at 10:44 PM

alphie on July 8, 2008 at 10:07 PM

LMAO. I think they quit reading Krugman and for good reason.

Dusty on July 8, 2008 at 11:15 PM

[wise_man on July 8, 2008 at 10:37 PM]

LOL. And it’s not like Clinton had to worry about a bunch of Republicans saying “wait for the wind”.

Thanks Dems.

Dusty on July 8, 2008 at 11:17 PM

Nothing they can do that cruise missiles can’t do better and cheaper.

Except turn on a dime and return to base in case of an immediate stand down order, nor can a cruise missile remain in the air for 24 hours or more and remain a credible threat without having to cause sh!tloads of damage while giving the diplomats on the ground enough time to come to their senses – before raining down sh!tloads of damage on their countries.

Fact is alphie, you are nearly as clueless as Clinton on matters military the uses for which the hardware is employed and anyone who qualifies Clinton’s “accomplishments” as a positive influence on our military (or our country) needs to be taken out back and smacked within an inch of his pathetic life.

P.S. Ya’ll should take a good look at market activity and a multitude of other factors before giving BJ Clinton credit for any economic expansion. Can you name one policy that led to the creation of those jobs other than the Asian Market Crisis? No, didn’t think so.

Ciannaky on July 8, 2008 at 11:31 PM

Does Nedra Pickler work for the Obama campaign full time now?

d1carter on July 8, 2008 at 11:45 PM

Balanced budget? Distraction…

PattyJ on July 9, 2008 at 12:00 AM

alphie, you’re the guy I had in mind when I wrote
“Public Perception Is Wrong About The 90s”.
Clinton gets way too much credit.

jgapinoy on July 9, 2008 at 12:08 AM

Seven Percent Solution on July 8, 2008 at 9:33 PM

You must have an intelligent keyboard :)

Entelechy on July 8, 2008 at 10:07 PM

I do….. sometimes smarter than me, especially when toasting with Limerick…….

alphie….. alphie……… alphie on July 8, 2008 at 10:07 PM.

Since this is true, and it is, what happens to the liberal argument against going into Iraq, and every false story posted after that?

It was just a matter of time, the United States Military freed 50 million people between Iraq and Afghanistan, Lybia turned over it’s nukes program and fuel, Iran is feeling the pinch and there are hundreds of thousands of dead terrorists that won’t be planning to cut off your head…….

…… what’s your problem with Winning?

Seven Percent Solution on July 9, 2008 at 1:31 AM

When Kindergarten hours are over, we’ll talk maturely about who votes for whom, and why.

Entelechy on July 8, 2008 at 9:13 PM

This just could answer some of the who votes for whom, and why.

The most in-depth comparison to date of McCain and Barack Obama’s tax plans was performed by the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the center-left Brookings Institution and Urban Institute that is nonetheless staffed by both Republicans and Democrats — co-director Eugene Steuerle was a deputy assistant secretary under Ronald Reagan — and is known for its methodological rigor. Its 38-page analysis found that McCain’s proposals would make the tax system even “more regressive” than permanently extending the Bush tax cuts of 2001 to 2006. McCain would accomplish this by following Bush’s blueprint and then supersizing it: providing “relatively little” tax relief to low- and middle-income earners, while giving “huge tax cuts” to the highest income brackets.

The Tax Policy Center’s computations show stark differences between the Obama and McCain plans in their relative impact on middle-class and high-income taxpayers. A middle-class family making $66,000 a year would see their taxes drop by $319 a year under McCain’s proposal, while a wealthy family making $604,000 a year would see a cut of $45,000. By contrast, Obama offers the biggest breaks for taxpayers at the bottom and in the middle of the income spectrum, while imposing sizeable tax increases on some of the highest earners — those making more than $250,000 annually. Under Obama’s plan, the middle-income family would receive a tax break that is three times larger than McCain’s — $1,042. The wealthy family would see a tax increase of $116,000 a year.
- Justin Jouvenal

MB4 on July 9, 2008 at 2:31 AM

Not sure who’s the bigger joke. McCain is full of it- there’s no way to balance the budget in 4 years given the deficits massive size and the current tax rates. You can’t have it both ways- and no politician is brave enough to tell people the truth.

bayam on July 8, 2008 at 8:48 PM

Balancing the budget is not the same as eliminating the deficit. Think about the difference for a second and then realize Obama is saying we cant balance the budget in 4 years.

Resolute on July 8, 2008 at 10:32 PM

Resolute is right. You are making the same mistake many Clinton supporters make when talking about Bill’s ‘projcted budget surplus’ they somehow claim that the deficit was gone when they did that; it wasn’t.
You could basically present a balanced budget within the first 100 days of a McCain administration.

Obama blowing off the deficit to ‘help American families’ is disgusting since it will do little else but hurt. We are getting off oil in the next 3 years and an even weaker dollar (weakened by the growing deficit) will only drive prices and inflation higher. That’s going to hurt average Americans far more than balancing the budget (which will result in higher interest rates and in turn higher savings rates which I for one will welcome when my savings account makes closer to 5% again rather than the 1.5% or whatever crap it earns now)

Of course I’ll believe McCain’s promise when I see it since most politicians can’t seem to keep their hands off of the Chinese and Saudi credit card these days, but it’d be a welcome change.

MannyT-vA on July 9, 2008 at 4:25 AM

who votes for whom, and why.

Entelechy on July 8, 2008 at 9:13 PM

By and large, Americans want to be told what government will do for them — as individuals, families, consumers — and not what it will do for the country’s long-term well-being, especially if that imposes some immediate cost or inconvenience. Grasping this, our leading politicians engage in a consensual censorship to skip issues that involve distasteful choices or that require deferred gratification. They prefer to assign blame and promise benefits. So elections come and go, there are winners and losers — and our problems fester.
- Robert Samuelson

MB4 on July 9, 2008 at 5:12 AM

No kidding, a left of center group thinks that the purpose of the tax code is to punish those who make to much.

I love it when Democrats get all upset because rich people have a little bit less of their income stolen.

MarkTheGreat on July 9, 2008 at 7:20 AM

I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America’s families …

Dem code for tax and spend.

Tony737 on July 8, 2008 at 8:35 PM

I was scared there for a minute. I thought Obama was referring to forced sterilization.

Shy Guy on July 9, 2008 at 7:24 AM

Barack is for reparations with a little spin. Rather than give money directly to Blacks he wants to direct it into the Black community through bogus grants and education. Let’s just call it the Guilt Trip program.
patrick neid on July 8, 2008 at 9:36 PM

I read an interview Barry gave a year or so ago (I’d provide the link but I don’t remember where I read it; may have been in an education journal). In response to the question about slave reparations, Obama said that he believes there are better ways to spend that money. (Apparently he believes there is a big pot of “slave reparations money” floating around out there somewhere). He talked about “investing” in the black community, and “creating more opportunities” in education and government contracts (i.e. racial quotas and preferences) for people of color. So Patrick is exactly right. Obama won’t admit that he supports reparations, but the truth is that he does — he just doesn’t want to call it that (sort of like McCain and amnesty), because that would hurt him politically with voters he needs to woo (e.g., working-class whites).

AZCoyote on July 9, 2008 at 7:27 AM

This time, Obama won’t just execute a flip-flop for himself. He’s about to force the entire party to do a 180 on deficit spending. When do the backflips cease with Obama?

Obama’s back-flips, flip-flops, flip-flop-flips, and flim-flams will cease when he is elected President and has the opportunity to use what is expected to be a gigantic Senate advantage (maybe even 60 D seats!) to raise taxes, gut our intelligence and military (so we get attacked again), nationalize health care, and guarantee two chickens in every pot.

Outlander on July 9, 2008 at 7:40 AM

Red ink? Who cares?

You’re thinking of Bush.

Tom_Shipley on July 9, 2008 at 8:15 AM

The Tax Policy Center’s computations show stark differences between the Obama and McCain plans in their relative impact on middle-class and high-income taxpayers. A middle-class family making $66,000 a year would see their taxes drop by $319 a year under McCain’s proposal, while a wealthy family making $604,000 a year would see a cut of $45,000. By contrast, Obama offers the biggest breaks for taxpayers at the bottom and in the middle of the income spectrum, while imposing sizeable tax increases on some of the highest earners — those making more than $250,000 annually. Under Obama’s plan, the middle-income family would receive a tax break that is three times larger than McCain’s — $1,042. The wealthy family would see a tax increase of $116,000 a year.
- Justin Jouvenal

What happens when the entire tax burden is paid by the wealthiest 10 percent? They will have no ability to have an impact on anything as their votes will matter not.

Do they qualify as slaves?

drjohn on July 9, 2008 at 8:29 AM

Bill Clinton created 22 million new American jobs in his 8 years in charge…little Bush created

Sorry Alphie:

President Clinton was on his way to a regular Democratic debacle until the Republicans toook over Congress. Only then did the situation improve.

davod on July 9, 2008 at 9:09 AM

What happens when the entire tax burden is paid by the wealthiest 10 percent? They will have no ability to have an impact on anything as their votes will matter not.

drjohn on July 9, 2008 at 8:29 AM

Firsly, it would be nice if Barry understood the difference between an EXPENSE and an INVESTMENT.

And although this has been posted many times before, it’s worth repeating:

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about “The Fall of The Athenian Republic” some 2,000 years prior.
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”
“The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”

JiangxiDad on July 9, 2008 at 9:10 AM

To MB4: If we assume that the Tax Policy Center’s numbers are correct, Obama would increase the tax burden on a wealthy family making $604,000 by $116,000, or 19.2% of their income.

People don’t make that kind of money working at Wal-Mart–they probably own a small business. So Obama takes an extra $116K from this family, and they lay off two employees they can no longer afford to pay, who are added to the welfare rolls. Multiply that by a million or so small-business owners at that income level, and Obama would throw millions of low- to middle-income people out of work. They might just get bitter about it, and not like Obama.

Oh, and another minor detail: Obama wants the Bush tax cuts to expire. The ones that changed a 15% tax bracket to 10% over $12,000 of income (for a married couple) at the low end, saving practically everyone $600. The ones that increased the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000 per child. For a family of four, those two changes alone add up to $1,600 a year for almost everyone. So Obama would give back $1,042 after taking $1,600? Lots more bitter people who might prefer Bush’s tax code, especially those with several children, who will probably grow up to be Republicans.

And with all that extra money, Obama still can’t balance the budget. Pathetic!

Steve Z on July 9, 2008 at 11:08 AM

Barack throws the deficit under The Bus.

Economy to follow…

profitsbeard on July 8, 2008 at 9:58 PM

LOL. Good one.

Sir Napsalot on July 9, 2008 at 11:35 AM

He (Obama) talked about “investing” in the black community, and “creating more opportunities” in education and government contracts…
AZCoyote on July 9, 2008 at 7:27 AM

We (the Dems and the government) HAD BEEN ‘investing’ in the black community and creating more opportunitues for them for the past 4 decades! Only to have the ‘black leaders’ accusing their own of ‘acting white’ and rejecting the upward movement.

Sir Napsalot on July 9, 2008 at 11:46 AM

He will come out in a few days and proclaim that this was an “inartful” statement! This after Soros and the Dem bigwigs who are actually telling him what to say have some time sweating him in a smoke filled room. He will then flop to the side of anti-deficit spending…

sabbott on July 10, 2008 at 8:06 AM