Obama vs. McCain Debate III

[EvilMonkey]

SS2k, this may be one of the things you were referring to. http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/10/...bamas-95-percen

Plouffe was repeating one of the boldest claims made by the Obama campaign. It's a claim that the Wall Street Journal editorial board dubbed "Obama's 95% Illusion," noting that more than a third of Americans don't pay any income taxes, and that what Obama's plan does do is offer a raft of subsidies and government payments to individuals and families that he redefines as "tax cuts."

[Soxbadger]

I dont really think that article has anything to do with the debate whether Obama or McCain is more socialist.

 

If anything that article suggests that Obama really is not going to cut taxes, which would mean that the argument that Obama is going to make the poor pay less gets thrown out the window.

 

It cant be both ways, if all the people are getting is a rebate then it cant be Socialist or "spreading the wealth around" because under the rebate idea almost every person would get some sort of rebate, which would do the exact opposite of a Progressive Tax.

 

So if that article is true and the tax cut is only in the form of rebates, then it would actually be a much less Socialist policy than the ones being currently advocated, as the rebate is applied equally regardless of level of income (you dont get a bigger rebate by making less money).

 

The problem right now is the attack on the Obama economic plan is inconsistent, you cant on one hand say hes lowering taxes for the poor so much that they wont have to pay any, while at the same time saying that he isnt really lowering taxes just giving rebates.

 

In fact the article does not even address the true question, do people with lower than 500 in tax liability still get the $500 credit, or does it just merely bring the tax liability down to 0.

 

I know that I dont attack McCain and Palin so my posts might not get a lot of traction, in another thread I was told that Democrats only attack McCain and Palin, so I guess that either means Im not a Democrat, or it means that no one is reading my posts.

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

As LF said, that would go nowhere. But I'd like to see it.

 

I am still a proponent of a balanced budget amendment. If you want to be able to throw money out there in dire need (like a really bad economy), you cut spending and/or raise taxes. You need immediate war action, you still have some of that funded automatically to the Pentagon anyway, and then you authorize a war action for the big chunks (war exemption to the amendment). You want to ensure flexibility, you build slush funds into the budget for emergency use. Not that hard, really.

 

but I realize I'm in the minority on that one.

 

The last six months or so are the exact reason that a balanced budget amendment would not work. There are points in time where government spending is necesary to save the economy.

[NorthSideSox72]

The last six months or so are the exact reason that a balanced budget amendment would not work. There are points in time where government spending is necesary to save the economy.

I agree, but I don't agree that a balanced budget amendment prevents that from happening. As I've said, raising short term debt is fine. You then adjust the rest of your spending accordingly, and you use money from reserves that should be there (because you've been balancing or running surpluses).

 

[The Critic]

The last six months or so are the exact reason that a balanced budget amendment would not work. There are points in time where government spending is necesary to save the economy.

I'm sure this spending would have fallen under the "emergency funding" situation.

 

I also don't believe a balanced budget amendment would work, but that's because I feel it would be abused and/or misinterpreted to fit any politician's spending "needs".