From Factcheck.org:Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker
We spoke with Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates’ tax plans. When we asked him if Obama’s claim that he would “cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families” was true, Berman told FactCheck.org that it was “consistent with our estimates.” Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.
Under Obama's plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes.
Under McCain's plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.
You can argue merits, likelihood of passing and impact, but when you call Obama's claim a lie, it is you who are lying.
The independent analysis above shows more money would be put in the hands of lower income people. This will be more stimulating in the short term (see http://www.cbo.gov//ftpdocs/88xx/doc...mulustable.htm). Your comments about investment would hold water for long-term growth only if the high end tax cuts were targeted specifically to investments that produce growth within the U.S.3. Putting more money in the hands of low income people--"those who will spend most or all of it" would indeed be a good thing, but first of all, it would NOT be the result of Obama's plans, and secondly, would NOT be MORE beneficial than increasing the money in the hands of upper income people--who would invest it. If you don't believe me, just ask Howard.
Perahps because actual results do not agree with your opinions. Analysis showed states with higher minimum wages than the federal standard had higher job growth. A more detailed analysis of Oregon's 1997 minimum wage hike showed real wage gains for those on the bottom, no net job loss, even in the retail sector, and an increase in the proportion of welfare recipients moving to employment. Even looking at a generally negative projection by South Dakota, concludes that the amount of money gained by the low income earners by the hike would be about 5 times greater than the amount lost due to lost jobs.4. Historically, raising the minimum wage has been a nightmare for the very people the libs claim to want to help. Increasing the cost of employing individuals invariably causes employers to employ less individuals--a lot of working poor get laid off. Still, Dem/libs continue to push the same fail idea. More people end up ON welfare instead of getting off--assuming you include "unemployment compensation" as welfare. In addition, the economy is NOT stimulated by purely private sector transactions, but only by either government confiscating less tax money or injecting money. Forcing employers to pay higher wages does neither.
What's the wait in emergency rooms where you are? How much money (ultimately coming out of our pockets) is wasted paying for high-priced ER visits for people with no insurance?5. You're right that Obama's health care plan has a much better chance of getting through a Dem/lib controlled Congress. However, it also has a 100% chance of doing more harm to the country and everybody in it than McCain's. The best plan of all is NO PLAN AT ALL--leaving well enough alone.
You mentioned abortion in your rant about democrats and their immoral agenda. I just point out that the democratic position is to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, and comprehensive sex ed is effective in doing so. I would agree that given what this country is facing, abortion should be a minor issue.6. I don't recall commenting about sex ed. I'm pretty much neutral/don't care about that. Similarly, while I am tacitly against abortion, it ranks pretty far down the list of issues for me.
Reply With Quote