BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
Racewerkz Engineering
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      08-27-2008, 09:09 PM   #1
TMNT
Captain
 
Drives: 330ci ZHP
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VA

Posts: 875
iTrader: (0)

Why is John McCain running as a republican? They HATE him

"What Bush did to McCain in the 2000 S. C. primary" taken from an online link.

FACT SHEET:

Bush Waged Nasty Smear Campaign Against McCain in 2000
Bush Supporters Called McCain “The *** Candidate.” In South Carolina, Bush supporters circulated church fliers that labeled McCain “the *** candidate.” Columnist Frank Rich noted that the fliers were distributed “even as Bush subtly reinforced that message by indicating he wouldn’t hire openly gay people for his administration.”

McCain Slurs Included Illegitimate Children, Homosexuality And A Drug-Addict Wife.
Among the rumors circulated against McCain in 2000 in South Carolina was that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually black, that McCain was both gay and cheated on his wife, and that his wife Cindy was a drug addict.”

Bush Campaign Used Code Words to Question McCain’s Temper.
“A smear campaign of the ugliest sort is now coursing through the contest for the presidency in 2000. Using the code word "temper," a group of Senate Republicans, and at least some outriders of the George W. Bush campaign, are spreading the word that John McCain is unstable. The subtext, also suggested in this whispering campaign, is that he returned from 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam with a loose screw. And it is bruited about that he shouldn't be entrusted with nuclear weapons.”

Bush Supporters Questioned McCain’s Sanity.
“Some of George W. Bush's supporters have questioned Republican presidential candidate John McCain's fitness for the White House, suggesting that his five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam drove him insane at the time.”

Bush Supporters Spread Racist Rumors About McCain’s Daughter.
Bush supporters in South Carolina made race-baiting phone calls saying that McCain had a “black child.” The McCains’ daughter, Bridget, was adopted from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh. In August 2000, columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that the McCains “are still seething about Bush supporters in South Carolina spreading word of their dark-skinned adopted daughter.”

Rove Suggests Former POW McCain Committed Treason and Fathered Child With Black Prostitute.
In 2000, McCain operatives in SC accused Rove of spreading rumors against McCain, such as “suggestions that McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war, and had fathered a child by a black prostitute,” according to the New Yorker.

After Rove Denied Role In McCain Whisper Campaign, Reporters Concluded He Was Behind It.
A December 1999 Dallas Morning News linked Rove to a series of campaign dirty tricks, including his College Republican efforts, allegedly starting a whisper campaign about Ann Richard being too gay-friendly, spreading stories about Jim Hightower’s involvement in a kickback scheme and leaking the educational history of Lena Guerrero. The article also outlined current dirty tricks and whisper campaigns against McCain in South Carolina, including that “McCain may be unstable as a result of being tortured while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.” (DMN, 12/2/99) After the article was published, Rove blasted Slater in the Manchester, NH airport, “nose to nose” according to one witness, with Rove claiming Slater had “harmed his reputation,” Slater later noted. But according to one witness, “What was interesting then is that everyone on the campaign charter concluded that Rove was responsible for rumors about McCain.”

Rove Was In Close Touch With McConnell, McCain-Feingold’s Chief Opponent.
Senior White House adviser Karl Rove was in close contact with Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) during McConnell’s effort to fight the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill in the U.S. Senate. According to Newsweek, though Rove and Bush have publicly kept their distance from McConnell on the issue, “sources tell Newsweek that Rove is, in fact, in close touch with McConnell as GOP experts study the bill for hidden land mines.”

Bush Campaign Accused of Using Push Polls Against McCain.
College of Charleston student Suzette Latsko said she received a telephone call from a woman who identified herself as an employee of Voter/Consumer Research, and that the caller misrepresented McCain’s positions and asked if Latsko knew McCain had been reprimanded for interfering with federal regulators in the savings and loan scandal. Voter/Consumer Research is listed as a polling contractor on Bush’s Federal Election Commission filings; the Bush campaign has paid Voter/Consumer Research $93,000 through December 31, 1999. Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer denied the call was a push poll, but said it was important that the Republican Party remember McCain’s role in the S&L crisis.

Bush Campaign Acknowledged Making Phone Calls.
Tucker Eskew, Bush’s South Carolina spokesman, acknowledged the Bush campaign made such calls, but claimed they were not “push polls.” Eskew added, “Show me a baseless comment in those questions.”

Bush Used Fringe Veterans Group to Attack McCain as “Manchurian Candidate.”
“In the case of Ted Sampley, the same guy who did Bush's dirty work in going after Sen. John McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries is doing the job against Kerry this year. Sampley dared compare McCain, who spent five years as a Vietnam POW, with ‘the Manchurian Candidate.’”

Sampley Called McCain a “Coward” and a Traitor.
“Sampley… accused McCain of being a weak-minded coward who had escaped death by collaborating with the enemy. Sampley claimed that McCain had first been compromised by the Vietnamese, then recruited by the Soviets.”

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/r...004_0821c.html

Of course, the Freepers will deny that any of this actually took place, the poor saps.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The anatomy of a smear campaign
By Richard H. Davis | March 21, 2004

Having run Senator John McCain's campaign for president, I can recount a textbook example of a smear made against McCain in South Carolina during the 2000 presidential primary. We had just swept into the state from New Hampshire, where we had racked up a shocking, 19-point win over the heavily favored George W. Bush. What followed was a primary campaign that would make history for its negativity.

In South Carolina, Bush Republicans were facing an opponent who was popular for his straight talk and Vietnam war record. They knew that if McCain won in South Carolina, he would likely win the nomination. With few substantive differences between Bush and McCain, the campaign was bound to turn personal. The situation was ripe for a smear.

It didn't take much research to turn up a seemingly innocuous fact about the McCains: John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her. Bridget has dark skin.

Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the "pollster" determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.

Thus, the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.

Some aspects of this smear were hardly so subtle. Bob Jones University professor Richard Hand sent an e-mail to "fellow South Carolinians" stating that McCain had "chosen to sire children without marriage." It didn't take long for mainstream media to carry the charge. CNN interviewed Hand and put him on the spot: "Professor, you say that this man had children out of wedlock. He did not have children out of wedlock." Hand replied, "Wait a minute, that's a universal negative. Can you prove that there aren't any?"

Campaigns have various ways of dealing with smears. They can refute the lies, or they can ignore them and run the risk of the smear spreading. But "if you're responding, you're losing." Rebutting tawdry attacks focuses public attention on them, and prevents the campaign from talking issues.

We chose to address the attacks by trying to get the media to focus on the dishonesty of the allegations and to find out who was making them. We also pledged to raise the level of debate by refusing to run any further negative ads -- a promise we kept, though it probably cost us the race. We never did find out who perpetrated these smears, but they worked: We lost South Carolina by a wide margin.

The only way to stop the expected mud-slinging in 2004 is for both President Bush and Senator Kerry to publicly order their supporters not to go there. But if they do, their behavior would be the exception, not the rule.


TMNT is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-29-2008, 02:15 PM   #2
lyndon_h
Lieutenant Colonel
 
lyndon_h's Avatar
 
Drives: e90
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Madagascar

Posts: 1,920
iTrader: (2)

I didn't read your text, but many Republicans really did hate McCain, but that was when he was truly was a maverick, now he's fallen in line party. I used to really like the guy, but I've lost alot of respect for him.
lyndon_h is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-31-2008, 01:12 AM   #3
sayemthree
Brigadier General
 
sayemthree's Avatar
 
Drives: bmw
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: usa

Posts: 4,845
iTrader: (0)

didt read your dribble either - fact is they Hate "raise yoru taxes" Obamam more.
sayemthree is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-31-2008, 10:17 AM   #4
TMNT
Captain
 
Drives: 330ci ZHP
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VA

Posts: 875
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sayemthree View Post
dribble
Maybe you should read it. Then again, its those like you who usual make assumptions before first informing yourself.
TMNT is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-31-2008, 10:41 AM   #5
E82tt6
Colonel
 
E82tt6's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 Black Saphire Z4 MC
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New Jersey

Posts: 2,629
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sayemthree View Post
didt read your dribble either - fact is they Hate "raise yoru taxes" Obamam more.


You should probably read Obamas tax plan. Nearly all Americans would get bigger tax cuts from him than McCain.

All of this is why I'm not voting for McCain. I lost a lot of respect when he started cozying up to dubya after everything he pulled in the primaries.
__________________
'08 Black Saphire/Black Z4 M Coupe
RIP Gretta: Blue Water/Lemon 135i. Died to save me.
-ChuckV
E82tt6 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-31-2008, 11:06 AM   #6
Rips335iCoupe
Banned
 
Drives: 2007 BMW 335i Coupe
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Goodyear, AZ

Posts: 947
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2007 335i Coupe  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by E82tt6 View Post
You should probably read Obamas tax plan. Nearly all Americans would get bigger tax cuts from him than McCain.
This is why idiots should not be allowed to vote! Here is the truth ... educate yourself!!

Obama's Tax Hike

Election '08: As Barack Obama tries to convince the American people he will cut their taxes, he actually plans to undo the Bush tax cuts — and the Reagan low tax legacy.

When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, the centerpiece of his much-touted economic plan was a middle-class tax cut. Once elected, he announced that the deficit was bigger than he thought, so no tax cuts.

This year, Barack Obama also promises cuts in middle-class taxes. The current New York Times magazine contends that "for most people, Obama is the tax cutter in this campaign."

Writing in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month, Obama economic advisers Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee promised: "The Obama plan would cut taxes for 95% of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples" on top of "tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth."

But what's touted as tax-cutting (even assuming his plan didn't undergo a Clintonesque transformation) hides tax increases for the middle class. According to the American Enterprise Institute's Alex Brill and Alan Viard, "Senator Obama's proposed 'tax cuts for the middle class' are actually marginal rate hikes in disguise."

The reason: Obama's plan rescinds tax breaks as some taxpayers' incomes rise, reducing their incentives to earn more.

Using data from the Brookings Institution's and Urban Institute's joint Tax Policy Center, Brill and Viard considered the Obama plan's effect on a two-earner couple with one child in college and another age 12 or younger. Their marginal tax rates are between 34% and 39% in the $31,000 to $45,000 income range — a 13 percentage point or more increase from current rates.

The increase happens because Obama phases out the child and dependent-care credit for one-child families in the $30,000-to-$58,000 income range. According to Brill and Viard, the effective tax rate increases by 3 percentage points, while making certain credits refundable triggers a tax penalty of up to 15%.

The same family earning $110,000 to $120,000 would suffer "a staggering 45% effective marginal rate . . . 11 percentage points higher than under current law," the AEI scholars say, because of changes planned for Bill Clinton's Hope Scholarship Tax Credit.

An "Economists for Obama" Web site calls the AEI findings "deeply dishonest" because their example of a family is "cherry-picked." Viard immediately responded, noting that Obama's use of refundability and phase-outs means that "any example will show these kinds of disincentive effects."

Undoing the Bush tax cuts, raising income tax rates, adding complexity to the tax code and believing that you can raise taxes on the richest Americans by an average of $800,000 a year, as Obama plans, with minimal negative economic effect — it all adds up to reversing an important part of the Reagan Revolution.

Rips335iCoupe is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-31-2008, 11:22 AM   #7
Rips335iCoupe
Banned
 
Drives: 2007 BMW 335i Coupe
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Goodyear, AZ

Posts: 947
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2007 335i Coupe  [0.00]
Obama/Biden — Left And Lefter

Election '08: The Democratic convention is about to nominate two of the three most liberal members of the U.S. Senate as its presidential ticket. In some ways, Barack Obama's running mate is further left than he is.
National Journal found that based on his voting record, Barack Obama was the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate for 2007. It ranked the six-term Delaware senator he chose as running mate to be the third most liberal senator.

Cutting and running in Iraq, for instance, as Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and most other congressional Democrats supported, was not politically-correct enough for the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; he wanted to carve Iraq into three separate entities.

Each part would likely have been easier for Islamist terrorists to destabilize than the fledgling parliamentary democracy in Baghdad today. Had Biden's advice been followed when he proposed it two years ago, the country would likely be inflamed in civil war today.

What's more, as American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Rubin noted in the Washington Post Tuesday, "Iran's Press TV seized on Biden's plan for partitioning Iraq and featured his statements with the headline 'U.S. plans to disintegrate Iraq.' " Making the destruction of Bush's presidency a priority over national security makes Joe Biden "Tehran's favorite senator," as Rubin calls him.

Biden even refused to vote for a bipartisan amendment classifying Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. His official rationale for opposing it was: "I don't trust this administration."

Unfortunately, this oh-so-seasoned foreign policy expert has trusted the Islamofascist administration running Iran all too much.

"Biden's unyielding pursuit of 'engagement' with Iran for more than a decade has made it easier for Tehran to pursue its nuclear program," Rubin says. In other words, Biden's personal ties with Tehran's Islamist regime have helped Iran come closer to developing weapons of mass destruction.

Foreign policy is only one area where Biden's radicalism exceeds even Obama's. As Tax Analysts' Chuck O'Toole noted on Tuesday, "on taxes, Biden has followed a path more overtly populist than the one Obama has walked, pushing for a more progressive tax code that shifts the tax burden away from lower and middle-income families and onto high earners and businesses."

While Obama would pair the expiration of the Bush tax cuts with a corporate tax rate cut, for instance, O'Toole noted: "In recent years, Biden has voted against corporate tax cuts, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2006, and a motion to consider a permanent repeal of the estate tax."

The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) graded both Obama and Biden "F" for their votes on economic issues. But while Obama voted favorably only 5% of the time, according to the NTU, Biden voted right even less — just 4% of the time.

Biden's tax-and-spend economic radicalism did not, however, prevent him from voting with Republican senators in 2005 to shield his state's large credit card industry, cardholders be damned. (To attract jobs, Delaware in the 1980s turned itself into a legal mecca for charge-card companies with laws allowing higher interest rates and providing much greater protection from hostile takeovers.)

Barack Obama in 2005 voted against the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act." So did Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and John Kerry, D-Mass.
As recently as last month, Obama even attacked his GOP opponent Sen. John McCain for voting for it. "While I was opposing the credit-card industry's bankruptcy bill that made it harder for working families to climb out of debt, (McCain) was supporting it," Obama said, "and he even opposed helping families who were only in bankruptcy because of medical bills they couldn't pay."

But now Obama has a running mate who did vote for "the credit-card industry's bankruptcy bill" (as he pocketed more campaign cash from the credit card industry than almost anyone) — a law that President Bill Clinton in 2000 pocket-vetoed because, as Clinton said at the time, it was "tilting the playing field against those debtors who genuinely turn to bankruptcy for a fresh start."

It seems that the "regular Joe" Sen. Obama is running with is just as radical as he is, if not more so — except when he gets paid off by a big industry to stick it to working families.
Rips335iCoupe is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-31-2008, 11:23 AM   #8
E82tt6
Colonel
 
E82tt6's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 Black Saphire Z4 MC
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New Jersey

Posts: 2,629
iTrader: (0)

Yeah, you're right, people making 45k a year are currently taxed at 0%... *roll eyes*

The article itself says it, the examples are cherry picked, and nearly all other sources point to him cutting taxes more than McCain, including the conservative Wall Street Journal. I'm sure I can find you an article from an ultra liberal source showing that McCain intends to increase the tax burden on the middleclass by a huge margin. That does not make it true. That is why looking at multiple sources is best, and conveniently enough you posted quotes from a few that support my point. Thanks!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rips335iCoupe View Post
This is why idiots should not be allowed to vote! Here is the truth ... educate yourself!!

Obama's Tax Hike

Election '08: As Barack Obama tries to convince the American people he will cut their taxes, he actually plans to undo the Bush tax cuts — and the Reagan low tax legacy.

When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, the centerpiece of his much-touted economic plan was a middle-class tax cut. Once elected, he announced that the deficit was bigger than he thought, so no tax cuts.

This year, Barack Obama also promises cuts in middle-class taxes. The current New York Times magazine contends that "for most people, Obama is the tax cutter in this campaign."

Writing in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month, Obama economic advisers Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee promised: "The Obama plan would cut taxes for 95% of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples" on top of "tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth."

But what's touted as tax-cutting (even assuming his plan didn't undergo a Clintonesque transformation) hides tax increases for the middle class. According to the American Enterprise Institute's Alex Brill and Alan Viard, "Senator Obama's proposed 'tax cuts for the middle class' are actually marginal rate hikes in disguise."

The reason: Obama's plan rescinds tax breaks as some taxpayers' incomes rise, reducing their incentives to earn more.

Using data from the Brookings Institution's and Urban Institute's joint Tax Policy Center, Brill and Viard considered the Obama plan's effect on a two-earner couple with one child in college and another age 12 or younger. Their marginal tax rates are between 34% and 39% in the $31,000 to $45,000 income range — a 13 percentage point or more increase from current rates.

The increase happens because Obama phases out the child and dependent-care credit for one-child families in the $30,000-to-$58,000 income range. According to Brill and Viard, the effective tax rate increases by 3 percentage points, while making certain credits refundable triggers a tax penalty of up to 15%.

The same family earning $110,000 to $120,000 would suffer "a staggering 45% effective marginal rate . . . 11 percentage points higher than under current law," the AEI scholars say, because of changes planned for Bill Clinton's Hope Scholarship Tax Credit.

An "Economists for Obama" Web site calls the AEI findings "deeply dishonest" because their example of a family is "cherry-picked." Viard immediately responded, noting that Obama's use of refundability and phase-outs means that "any example will show these kinds of disincentive effects."

Undoing the Bush tax cuts, raising income tax rates, adding complexity to the tax code and believing that you can raise taxes on the richest Americans by an average of $800,000 a year, as Obama plans, with minimal negative economic effect — it all adds up to reversing an important part of the Reagan Revolution.

__________________
'08 Black Saphire/Black Z4 M Coupe
RIP Gretta: Blue Water/Lemon 135i. Died to save me.
-ChuckV
E82tt6 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-31-2008, 11:36 AM   #9
Rips335iCoupe
Banned
 
Drives: 2007 BMW 335i Coupe
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Goodyear, AZ

Posts: 947
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2007 335i Coupe  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by E82tt6 View Post
Yeah, you're right, people making 45k a year are currently taxed at 0%... *roll eyes*

The article itself says it, the examples are cherry picked, and nearly all other sources point to him cutting taxes more than McCain, including the conservative Wall Street Journal. I'm sure I can find you an article from an ultra liberal source showing that McCain intends to increase the tax burden on the middleclass by a huge margin. That does not make it true. That is why looking at multiple sources is best, and conveniently enough you posted quotes from a few that support my point. Thanks!
The facts are right in front of you, and you just close your eyes. Keep drinking that kool aid ....
Rips335iCoupe is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-31-2008, 11:55 AM   #10
Rips335iCoupe
Banned
 
Drives: 2007 BMW 335i Coupe
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Goodyear, AZ

Posts: 947
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2007 335i Coupe  [0.00]
Senator Barack Obama declared recently that he wants to “reform our tax code so that it rewards work and not just wealth.” We think that is a great goal if it means a simple tax system with low marginal tax rates.

Unfortunately, a close inspection of Obama’s proposals reveals something disquieting: he would raise marginal tax rates for many middle-income taxpayers, a bad move for anyone seeking to promote economic growth.

Although Obama is offering a new series of tax breaks, they undermine rather than improve economic incentives. First, whether or not you get those breaks will depend on your income. In Washington, taking away tax breaks as families work harder to make more money is called a “phase-out.” Economists have a different name for it—we call it a tax. Reducing a person’s tax credit as his income goes up also reduces his incentive to earn more income.
Second, Obama would make some credits refundable for families with credits bigger than their tax liability, which would also have the nefarious effect of raising marginal tax rates. For example, consider a worker in the 10 percent bracket with $1,000 of tax liability before credits who claims $1,200 in credits. The tax impact of earning an extra $100 depends on whether the credit is refundable. If it’s not refundable, there’s no tax penalty on earning the extra $100 because the worker’s tax liability stays at zero. But if the credit is refundable, earning the extra money pushes the tax up from negative $200 to negative $190—that’s a 10 percent penalty on earning income.

Although Obama is offering a new series of tax breaks, they undermine rather than improve economic incentives.
The solid line in the nearby chart illustrates the effective marginal tax rate under Obama’s tax proposals (based on the authoritative “Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans,” published by the Brookings Institution/Urban Institute’s Tax Policy Center).

These are the marginal rates in 2009 for a two-earner couple with two children—a college freshman and a 12-year-old receiving after-school care—under some specific assumptions. For comparison, the dotted line on the chart illustrates the effective tax rates under current law. The rates shown in the chart are not spelled out in the tax code; they are the result of giving and taking away tax breaks as the household’s income changes.

As the chart shows, Obama’s give-and-take tax policy results in marginal tax rates of 34 percent to 39 percent in the $31,000 to $45,000 income range for this family. That’s an increase of 13 percentage points or more from the current rates.

What accounts for the higher rates? First, Obama expands the maximum child and dependent care credit for families with one young child from $1,050 to $1,500 and phases down the credit over a longer income range, from $30,000 to $58,000. Throughout this income range, the credit is phasing out at a rate of $30 per $1,000 of income, thus raising the effective tax rate by 3 percentage points. Obama also makes certain credits refundable, which introduces a tax penalty of 10 percent or 15 percent, depending on the income bracket.

While Obama has publicly embraced a tax rate of 40 percent for couples earning over $350,000, his tax policies would result in a staggering 45 percent effective marginal rate in the $110,000 to $120,000 income range for this family. That is 11 percentage points higher than under current law.

The culprit in this case is Obama’s proposed reform of the Hope Scholarship Tax Credit for college tuition, which he would rename the “American Opportunity Tax Credit.” He would increase the credit’s maximum value from $1,800 to $4,000 while still phasing out the credit over the same income range, $100,000 to $120,000. The larger phase-out would boost the penalty on work from 9 percentage points to 20 percentage points.

Although Senator John McCain would not eliminate the existing phase-outs, he would avoid adding new ones, with one small and temporary exception. While McCain has proposed increasing the personal exemption for children, he would make it immediately available only to lower-income taxpayers. Until the bigger exemption is offered to everyone in 2016, some households would face an additional effective marginal tax rate of about 2 percentage points.

To be sure, Obama’s proposals would not tarnish an otherwise pristine tax code. As the chart shows, the U.S. tax code is already littered with phase-ins and phase-outs. For that matter, it’s hard to know how much phase-outs actually discourage people from earning additional income. Because the phase-outs are so hard to decipher, many Americans may ignore them when making their work and saving decisions. Of course, those people are still burdened by the long and frustrating IRS worksheets required to compute the value of their tax credits; and creating a more confusing tax code certainly does not make for good government.

While both candidates will reduce their tax plans to clever sound bites, voters should consider how those plans would affect incentives to earn income. Unfortunately, Senator Obama’s proposed “tax cuts for the middle class” are actually marginal rate hikes in disguise.

Rips335iCoupe is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-31-2008, 02:47 PM   #11
sayemthree
Brigadier General
 
sayemthree's Avatar
 
Drives: bmw
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: usa

Posts: 4,845
iTrader: (0)

HAHAHA Obama has his millions tucked away in tax free acounts. while he claims to want to tax the rich. ANd lets see - how did he make his millions? hard work? honest job? no, he became a politician.
sayemthree is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-31-2008, 05:48 PM   #12
E82tt6
Colonel
 
E82tt6's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 Black Saphire Z4 MC
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New Jersey

Posts: 2,629
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sayemthree View Post
HAHAHA Obama has his millions tucked away in tax free acounts. while he claims to want to tax the rich. ANd lets see - how did he make his millions? hard work? honest job? no, he became a politician.
By selling a lot of books, actually.

He was making peanuts (compared to most politicians) until he published his books.
__________________
'08 Black Saphire/Black Z4 M Coupe
RIP Gretta: Blue Water/Lemon 135i. Died to save me.
-ChuckV
E82tt6 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-31-2008, 06:02 PM   #13
scottwww
Brigadier General
 
scottwww's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

Posts: 4,759
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by E82tt6 View Post
By selling a lot of books, actually.

He was making peanuts (compared to most politicians) until he published his books.
I haven't followed his published works. Wasn't it a couple books about himself that made him the most money? He's like a cult figure.
__________________
2007 BMW 335i E92, Montego Blue on Cream Beige, MT, ZSP, ZPP, CA, PDC, CWP and Style 188 for winter

offTopic - politics - ChoppedPhoto
scottwww is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:02 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST