Obama or McCain

[ActYourWage]

I just can't stand old people.

I hope the younger generations don't have the same opinion you have when you are old.

[Blue Leader]

Show me somewhere on an objective site like factcheck.org where its says Obama is a socialist.

How is socialized health care not a form of socialsim? I hope you don't need an 'official' website to inform you that Obama enjoys the thought of government controlling more than it does now.

[zooracer]

This is false. What he said was that if everyone inflated their tires correctly, the amount of oil saved would be the same as drilling for oil off the coasts which is true. The theme was that drilling isn't going to solve gas prices (especially since it will take over 10 years for them to produce any oil) so we need to be doing other things if we want to bring prices down. I think that fits in well with standard personal finance philosophy.

Glenn beck is not a objective source. I thought we agreed to try and stop with that crap in this thread. Show me somewhere on an objective site like factcheck.org where its says Obama is a socialist. Those again are nothing but scare tactics (and I know both sides use them so I'll call out Obama people that use them as well) Can we please keep the propoganda out and go by their policies?

We import 70% of all of our oil from other countries. This number is getting bigger every single day.
This is the THE single largest movement of our dollars OUTSIDE of a country...ever....in the whole world.

Enough is enough.

We need to let the oil companies drill. China is working with Cuba to drill off the coast of florida. Very close to where we would be drilling if the federal govt. allowed the oil companies to do so.
Only now, we have will have to worry about whether China has the same environmental safeguards that U.S. oil companies use....

If they dont, watch out pristine Florida coastline....

The democrat mantra of "It will take 10 yrs to see the oil" is getting a little tiring.
I have to wonder if the dems were saying this 10 yrs ago?

We need to be prepared for the future. This means we need to drill for oil, nat gas, coal, wind turbines, solar panels....everything.

Obama and the rest of the dems are against oil. Yet they have not come up with an energy plan utilizing alternative energy sources. Heck, they had 8 yrs during clinton...but all we got were empty promises.



Sorry, but I cant drive to work on hot air alone!

[sweeps]

Moral issues are my number one priority on which I vote. Abortion is a deal breaker for me. I am very Pro Life. May God help us.

So killing fetuses is bad, but killing innocent people in Iraq and letting poor people starve in the United States, that's fine.

[genchan]

How is socialized health care not a form of socialism? I hope you don't need an 'official' website to inform you that Obama enjoys the thought of government controlling more than it does now.

Again, I ask you to show me one non partisan website that says that Obama's plan is socialized medicine. I had hoped we agreed to debate on the policy position and not scare tactics.

Obama is offering a plan where health insurance will be affordable to anyone that wants it. Affordable health care and socialized health care are two different things.

Now if you want to say that Obama will change how health care is priced currently (where health care insurance dictate who qualifies and who doesn't) then yes, you are correct. Just like the government negotiates prices on drugs for the VA, it will bring drug prices down to more reasonable levels.

I believe that standard health care is a right for every American citizen, not just the rich (my opinion) and we should be ashamed that we take such poor care of all our citizens.

Again, show me a non partisan site that claims that Obama's health care plan is socialized medicine as opposed to bringing down prices so everyone can afford health insurance if they want it.

[genchan]

As for the post that started this thread, I hope that Maat55 will be willing to edit it so that only the links to both Obama and McCain policies are present or at least note that the email is false:

FactCheck.org: Would Obama tax my profits if I sell my home? Would he tax my IRA? Would he tax my water?

Would Obama tax my profits if I sell my home? Would he tax my IRA? Would he tax my water?

No. A new e-mail being circulated about Obama's tax proposals is almost entirely false.

Alert readers may already have noted that this chain e-mail does not provide links to any of Obama's actual proposals or cite any sources for the claims it makes. That is because they are made up.This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible to believe that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness on the part of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama's tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate.

Our own sources for the following are Obama's own Web site and other statements, interviews with Obama's policy advisers, and a comprehensive analysis of both the McCain and Obama tax plans produced by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, plus additional sources to which we have provided links.

Home Sales: The claim that Obama would impose a 28 percent tax on the profit from "all home sales" is false. Both Obama and McCain would continue to exempt the first $250,000 of gain from the sale of a primary residence ($500,000 for a married couple filing jointly) which results in zero tax on all but a very few home sales.


Capital Gains Rate: It's untrue that Obama is proposing a 28 percent capital gains tax rate. He said in an interview on CNBC that he favors raising the top rate on capital gains from its present 15 percent to 20 percent or more, but no higher than 28 percent. And as for a 28 percent rate, he added, "my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that." Furthermore, he has said only couples making $250,000 or more (or, his policy advisers tell us, singles making more than $200,000) would pay the higher capital gains rate. That means the large majority of persons who pay capital gains taxes would see no increase at all.


Tax on Dividends: Another false claim is that Obama proposes to raise the tax rate on dividends to 39.6 percent. Dividends currently are taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, and Obama would raise that to the same rate as he would tax capital gains, somewhere between 20 percent and 28 percent but likely "significantly" lower than 28 percent. This higher tax also would fall only on couples making $250,000 or more or singles making more than $200,000.


Taxing IRAs and 529s: Contrary to the claim in this e-mail, raising tax rates on capital gains or dividends would not result in higher taxes on any investments held in Individual Retirement Accounts or in popular, tax-deferred "college funds" under section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code. The whole point of such tax-deferred plans is that dividends and capital gains are allowed to accumulate and compound tax-free, and neither Obama nor McCain proposes to change that. And as previously mentioned, any capital gains or dividend income from stocks, bonds or mutual funds owned outside of tax-deferred accounts would continue to be taxed at current rates except for couples making over $250,000, or singles making more than $200,000.


Doubled Taxes? The claim that "Under Obama your taxes will more than double!" is also false. The comparative rate tables this e-mail provides for McCain and Obama are entirely wrong, as we explained in an earlier article March 13 about another false e-mail from which these tables are copied. It is supposedly a comparison of tax rates before and after the Bush tax cuts, but it grossly overstates the effect of the Bush cuts. Furthermore, Obama proposes to retain the Bush cuts for every single income level shown in this bogus table.


Estate Tax. The claim that Obama proposes to "restore the inheritance tax" is also false, as are the claims that McCain would impose zero tax and that Bush "repealed" it. McCain and Obama both would retain a reduced version of the estate tax, as it is correctly called, though McCain would reduce it by more.

The tax now falls only on estates valued at more than $2 million (effectively $4 million for couples able to set up the required legal and financial arrangements). It reaches a maximum rate of 45 percent on amounts more than that. It was not repealed, but it is set to expire temporarily in 2010, then return in 2011, when it would apply to estates valued at more than $1 million ($2 million for couples), with the maximum rate rising to 55 percent.

Obama has proposed to apply the tax only to estates valued at more than $3.5 million ($7 million for couples), holding the maximum rate at 45 percent. McCain would apply it to estates worth more than $5 million ($10 million for couples), with a maximum rate of 15 percent.


"New Tax" Falsehoods: The e-mail continues with a string of made-up taxes that it falsely claims Obama has proposed. He has not proposed a tax on new homes with more than 2,400 square feet, or a new gasoline tax or a tax on retirement accounts. The most laughably false claim is that Obama would tax "water."

Two claims in this message, while not completely false, are still grossly misleading.

The claim that Obama would impose "new taxes on natural resources" may refer to his support for a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions, which indeed would impose large costs on industries burning coal, gas or oil and, indirectly, on their consumers. But McCain also supports cap-and-trade legislation, and even coauthored an early version of a bill that reached the Senate floor this year. Obama's plan would give the federal government more of the revenue from auctioning pollution permits than McCain's plan. Whether cap-and-trade amounts to a "tax" is a matter of interpretation. The fact is neither McCain nor Obama call it that.

There is also some truth to the claim that Obama would impose "new taxes" to finance his health care plan, depending on your interpretation of "new." He has said he would pay for much of his plan "by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year, as they are scheduled to do." That would certainly be a tax increase for those high-income persons, compared with what they are paying now. But whether that's imposing a new tax, or just letting an old one come back, depends on your point of view. It may well be that Obama will eventually propose tax increases to finance some of his plan. We've noted before that the "cost savings" that he says will finance much of his plan are inflated and probably won't materialize, according to independent experts we consulted. But it's wrong to say that he's proposing such taxes now.

The short answer to our reader's question is, no, this message isn't real. It's a pack of lies.

[genchan]

We import 70% of all of our oil from other countries. This number is getting bigger every single day.
This is the THE single largest movement of our dollars OUTSIDE of a country...ever....in the whole world.

Enough is enough.

We need to let the oil companies drill. China is working with Cuba to drill off the coast of florida. Very close to where we would be drilling if the federal govt. allowed the oil companies to do so.
Only now, we have will have to worry about whether China has the same environmental safeguards that U.S. oil companies use....

If they dont, watch out pristine Florida coastline....

The democrat mantra of "It will take 10 yrs to see the oil" is getting a little tiring.
I have to wonder if the dems were saying this 10 yrs ago?

We need to be prepared for the future. This means we need to drill for oil, nat gas, coal, wind turbines, solar panels....everything.

Obama and the rest of the dems are against oil. Yet they have not come up with an energy plan utilizing alternative energy sources. Heck, they had 8 yrs during clinton...but all we got were empty promises.

Sorry, but I cant drive to work on hot air alone!

I agree with you here. I think a comprehensive plan using oil, coal, wind, solar and other energy sources is needed. Obama has started to drift in this direction as well as McCain in the last couple of days. I think they need to all go together - not just oil, not just wind, but a comprehensive energy policy using and encouraging them all so that we do ween ourselves off of foreign oil. This includes conservation on our parts as well.

This is very different from stating that drilling on the coasts will lower gas prices. My response was to the false claim that Obama said inflating tires will solve our energy problems which was not what he said.

[feh]

Obama, for so, so many reasons.

I agree with McCain that we should start building more nuclear power plants. Other than that single issue, I'm with Obama.

Except for a couple issues, McCain would be no different than Bush, and it's obvious what a complete and utter disaster Bush has been.

Energy
We need to use less oil. It's a finite resource - as demand increases and supply decreases, the price will become prohibitive. Drilling off the coast will not help; I've read the reserves there amount to about 1% of the world oil supply. For those folks saying "drill more", please explain how increasing supply by 1% will have much, if any affect on oil prices.

One of the reasons prices have dropped the last couple weeks is because people are actually using less oil (driving less). Oil production has not increased. Using less oil is the real solution.

Abortion
I am pro-choice. It's terribly important that the next couple Supreme Court justices be appointed by a democrat.

Economy
I'm all for repealing Bush's tax cuts. The rich don't need more money.

The deficit is completely out of control. I'm hoping (but I'm not convinced) that Obama can head us back toward a balanced budget. That will require raising taxes. If that's what it takes, then that's what it takes.

[zooracer]

My big worry with Obama is the affect it will have on wall street and on the economy.
Obama DOES plan to raise taxes. The scary thing is, we really dont know which taxes and by how much?!

This is a very, very, very bad time to be raising taxes. If you look historically back at the Great Depression and Hoover raising taxes and restricting trade...economists know today that this made it worse and pushed us into the abyss.

The problem with Obama's plan (and pretty much every democrats' fiscal plan) is that you cannot tax the crap out of the producers...or rich...in this country and think all will be fine and there will be no repercussions.

This is very bad time with the state of the U.S. economy and the dollar to be raising taxes and spending more money.

We need to restrict govt. spending drastically (this means both democrats AND republicans...if you think it is just Booosh, go check out voting records on various pork belly bills in congress and see how people from BOTH sides of the isle are responsible for this mess of a deficit).

The only person I've heard say anything about restricting/cutting spending is McCain.
Now, whether he will do this or not, I have no idea. But, at least he understands the concept (or his financial advisor does). Whereas Obama has said nothing about this.

Obama's plan to reduce the deficit is to tax the crap out of the rich to pay down the deficit. The rich, who are the big producers in the economy, will react accordingly.
If you do the math, there is just about no way you can increase taxes enough to pay off trillions of dollars of deficit. At least not in my lifetime.

I vote with my pocketbook. Not morals, or religion, but with my wallet.

Obama gets in, and just watch as the market crashes. Mark my words.

Dont believe me? Google some top economists and see what they say.
As usual, it will be the middle class who gets hurt the most.

[ActYourWage]

So killing fetuses is bad, but killing innocent people in Iraq and letting poor people starve in the United States, that's fine.

Killing unborn babies is bad. Let me ask you a question, Have you served in Iraq? I did not say that letting poor people starve is fine. Do you really want the Government to control the people?

I never really understood how people are pro-choice. Can someone give me ONE good reason besides the rape or inncest reasons it is right to kill unborn babies?

[ActYourWage]

I vote with my pocketbook. Not morals, or religion, but with my wallet.

Vote with your pocketbook, heh? Is life all about money?

[feh]

I never really understood how people are pro-choice. Can someone give me ONE good reason besides the rape or inncest reasons it is right to kill unborn babies?

Please explain why "killing an unborn baby" is acceptable in the case of rape or incest.

[M-squared]

I never really understood how people are pro-choice. Can someone give me ONE good reason besides the rape or inncest reasons it is right to kill unborn babies?

What about babies who are born to mothers who don't want them and are then neglected/abused/abandoned? What about teen mothers who never have the chance to finish high school or go to college or trade school and are then stuck in the welfare system forever?

[zooracer]

Vote with your pocketbook, heh? Is life all about money?

Life is not all about money....until you dont have any, that is

I have no problem with people voting based purely on what they think about...say...abortion.

However, how many years have you or others cast your vote based on abortion?
Now, how many years and presidents have gone by...and it is still legal?

[sweeps]

The most important part of this campaign in my eyes is how McCain and his team have had to resort to smear attacks on Obama's character. They don't have a strong message, so they're resorting to tearing down the other guy.

The issue is McCain doesn't have much to offer as president. He's a war hero and I commend him for that, but history has shown being a war hero doesn't automatically qualify you to be a good president. He is and acts old. He does not inspire when he speaks. And he doesn't really propose many differences from George W. Bush's failed policies.

As far as economics is concerned, McCain himself admitted that economics wasn't his strong suit.