Your Money: McCain vs. Obama

See where the presidential candidates stand on the major economic issues.

 A detailed guide to the economic issues that matter most to voters in the 2008 presidential election.

Compare where Barack Obama and John McCain stand on key campaign issues, including:

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

I like McCain plans better. Obama's and probably other's democratic platforms are based on giving fish to hungry instead of teaching them how catch fish. And personally on taxes refund I got laughable amount this year. I can fill up my car couple of times. Thank you *** democ-rats!

---

Count your money

Obama and McCain Tax Proposals

According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.html

As much as hate to admit it, Obama will probably win. Unless his campaign implodes. As far as policies I got to vote with my pocketbook, neither me nor my parents qualify for much under McCain so Obama it is...

---

Jedem Das Seine.

I agree with Sergey. Relative prosperity of the lower and middle classes is a function of economic activity and its perpetual expansion. Tax breaks and rebate checks, by definition cannot perpetually expand - they are spent and forgotten. We can see today what happens to these two classes when the economic expansion slows. We can easily assume what would happen if it reversed. Some think it's already starting. How dumb would it be, at a time like this, to place a burden on economic growth in the form of an employer tax hike?

All non-government employers are hit - corporate, and, as the chart above shows - small business owners as well. These entities pay a living to 200 million Americans. I am not normally a supply-sider, but this is just too obvious. We are about to have >5% inflation, dollar has fallen, profits of US employers are falling, and Obama taxes them higer, there's less left over for research/development/expansion, -- how are wages supposed to grow enough even to keep up with inflation?  You are, among many other things, taxing the friggin payroll budget of every employer! And how is he making up for this for the employee? a $500 tax break! Thanks. And keep in mind, that's if you HAVE a job. 

Economy must be stimulated. Everyone older than 15 and not living in North Korea knows how you stimulate an economy.  And it resembles the chart on the left.  The top 4 lines employ over half of americans, corporations (I assume not covered by the chart) employ the rest.  

 

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

This  is taken from livejournal. I'm actually just interested in what people guess.

Guess the probability of Obama being elected
Опитування #1211981 Predict-a-president game
Open to: всі, detailed results viewable to: всі

What are the chances of Obama winning this election: (Какова вероятность того, что президентом станет Обама)

How certain are you of your estimate? (насколько вы уверены, что правильно определили вероятность).

The more I think about Obama's tax program the more I disagree with him.

That very top rich class is why our country is so powerful. Government should do their best to ensure those guys feel comfortable personally and business wise. Gov should kiss their arsses on a regular basis, check with them how they are doing or if they need anything. Not hit them with taxes! If rich guys feel uncomfortable there is nothing stopping them to move capital elsewhere. To other country with better tax rates. Same way as Russian oligarchs moved money and themselves to England. We must do everything possible to keep them here.

Now about low income class (the democrat's majority). If we will promote such a life style, saying it's not their fault they are poor and did not go to school and do not want to go to work every day, here is  compensation, medical insurance and other benefits, in fifty or so years, after raising couple of generations like this we eventually will become another Mexico. We will be a country with rich people moved abroad and rest of the crowd is uneducated low income amigos. In this country low income people should be exception, not a norm. And this life style should be discouraged.

That's how I interpret Obama's tax platform.

---

_Sergey_:

Now about low income class (the democrat's majority). If we will promote such a life style, saying it's not their fault they are poor and did not go to school and do not want to go to work every day, here is  compensation, medical insurance and other benefits...

I so agree... stupid welfare type mentality... "why bust my ass if the government will take care of me..."

---

Sweater, n.: garment worn by child when her mother is feeling chilly. ~Ambrose Bierce

Сергей, что-то я не знал что раньше Мексика была сильной и свободной а из-за государственных програм зачахла.

Healthcare needs to be affordable and accessible. Everyone benefits if it is, I think it's pretty obvious. How we arrive at it is another matter. If the market does not do it, leaving it undone is hardly better than having a government program.

I have not seen this "welfare mentality" voiced by anyone other than conservative talk-show hosts. I am sure it exists, but bring proof that it is widespread and will increase with government programs! 

---

Jedem Das Seine.

Orkster:

I have not seen this "welfare mentality" voiced by anyone other than conservative talk-show hosts. I am sure it exists, but bring proof that it is widespread and will increase with government programs! 

The easiest way to prove: go to Brooklyn and hang around for some time. You will meet GENERATIONS living on welfare. God knows how many people... hundreds thousand, millions? I lived there among such people for 6 months. I am sure you will find similar picture in Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia. And that's only "russian" immigration. Add mexicans in Arizona and east coast, add Louisiana here, other immigration communities from eastern europe, far east, asia, Turkey, Africa, Korea just across the Hudson river and here and there. When they bring their elderly parents here guess how they support them?

---

If someone hasn't seen "welfare mentality"  and it's relationship to government programs, that person must be leaving very privileged life, similar to most of high ranking democrats....

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

Welfare reality has to be distinguished from welfare myths. There seems to be a lot of those floating around here. But we digress.

There is a difference between giving away money and cutting taxes. Obama says he will do the later, not the former. Any tax cut is a good tax cut in my opinion. I believe we will have more of an impact if we promote consumption by cutting taxes on those who consume most of their income and to those who invest it.

_Sergey_, what about the rest of what I was saying? I know, responding to juciest points is more fun but let's not be lazy, it's only a couple of lanes :-)

---

Jedem Das Seine.

Orkster:

_Sergey_, what about the rest of what I was saying? I know, responding to juciest points is more fun but let's not be lazy, it's only a couple of lanes :-)

If you wish...

Orkster:

Сергей, что-то я не знал что раньше Мексика была сильной и свободной а из-за государственных програм зачахла.

Я привел аналогию с Мексикой, что сейчас.

Orkster:

Healthcare needs to be affordable and accessible. Everyone benefits if it is, I think it's pretty obvious. How we arrive at it is another matter. If the market does not do it, leaving it undone is hardly better than having a government program.

No opinion. Out of tax discussion context.

---

Orkster:

Welfare reality has to be distinguished from welfare myths. There seems to be a lot of those floating around here.

Can you elaborate?  I don't think most people have a misconception of the definition of "welfare mentality".  Maybe only those who don't see it as a crippling plague on this nation's financial system.

Orkster:

There is a difference between giving away money and cutting taxes. Obama says he will do the later, not the former.

Actually, there is not a difference at all, arithmetically speaking.  The percieved differences only exist for the purposes of political rhetoric. 

Orkster:

Any tax cut is a good tax cut in my opinion.

So cut them to zero.   This is statement is one of the worst misconceptions in political history.  Tax rates are a balance of a number of factors, most importantly what the democracy wants the governemnt to SPEND on the population's well-being, and what services they expect the government to provide.  One cannot make blanket statements independently of these factors.

Orkster:

I believe we will have more of an impact if we promote consumption by cutting taxes on those who consume most of their income and to those who invest it.

This statemnt is correct in a vacuum, but then you have to ask if they are willing to abandon their quest for new entitlements (universal health care), and reevaluate existing ones? If not, perhaps stimulating consumption is less important than socialism.  We have many lessons in history, and even currently by looking at different countries as far as what our choices are on this matter.  What we've done for decades is have our cake and eat it too.  That led to deficits and foreign debt.  Maybe we can keep that up a few more decades, who the hell knows.  I wouldn't  

 

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

_Sergey_:

Orkster:

Healthcare needs to be affordable and accessible. Everyone benefits if it is, I think it's pretty obvious. How we arrive at it is another matter. If the market does not do it, leaving it undone is hardly better than having a government program.

No opinion. Out of tax discussion context.

I would make the case that it is not out of context, but I would say the opposite of what Orkster is saying - government involvement is PRECISELY what keeps the market from offering affordable and accessible health care, by removing the affordability constraint that works so well in keeping down costs of all unregulated products and services.  Why not charge 1000000 for a surgery?  why not 1000000000?  Insurance or governement will pay it.  The total costs - distributed over the healthy population - regardless of method - be it taxes, insurance premiums, or other clever sh*t, is potentially the very problem that is the root of all evil in US healthcare.

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский