From The Road
June 12, 2008 3:54 PM

Obama Jabs at McCain Tax Cuts

(CBS)

From CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic:

(KAUKAUNA, Wisc.) Barack Obama told a crowd of predominately white, middle class voters today that his tax plan will provide three times more relief than John McCain’s proposed cuts. He charged McCain with only helping the wealthiest families, saying that his tax cuts will only go to households earning more than $2.8 million a year.

“Now, I don’t want to embarrass anybody but how many people here make more than $2.8 million a year,” Obama asked the audience here, “If you’re there, I wanna know you because we’re still fundraising!”

Obama described McCain’s plan as neither conservative nor “fiscally prudent,” calling it a “regressive plan” plan that is twice as expensive as George Bush’s original policies. “I often say that John McCain is running to serve out George Bush’s third term, but that’s not being fair to George Bush,” Obama said to laughter and applause from the crowd.

He denied claims that he is a “tax and spend liberal,” saying that he will not raise taxes on households making under $250,000 per year. However, Obama added, “What is true is I’m gonna ask wealthy Americans to pay a little bit more because they have benefited more from the growth of this economy over the last decade. Of all the economic growth that’s taken place – about three-fourths of it have gone to the wealthiest Americans. It hasn’t gone to workers, it hasn’t gone to you and I don’t think that’s the way to build a strong economy. "

On Tuesday, McCain accused Obama of proposing the biggest tax increase since World War II. “Under Senator Obama's tax plan, Americans of every background would see their taxes rise - seniors, parents, small business owners, and just about everyone who has even a modest investment in the market,” McCain said at National Small Business Summit in Washington, D.C.

The Obama campaign sent an e-mail today, refuting McCain's comment. "Obama's proposal does not constitute a tax increase in the traditional sense, since taxes would be lower under his plan than they would under current law," the e-mail statement read, "We find McCain's statement to be false."

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds replied to Obama’s claims today in a statement to CBS News: “Barack Obama needs to learn the facts. The very same report that Barack Obama cited to make that claim actually demonstrated that John McCain’s tax plan included relief for taxpayers across the board. John McCain has proposed expanding the child tax credit for families, keeping taxes low for the smallest investors and providing a gas tax holiday to every American – all those clearly include Americans from across the income spectrum.”
Tags:
Obama ,
McCain ,
Taxes
Topics:
Barack Obama
Add a Comment See all 206 Comments
by fuzkida June 12, 2008 4:28 PM PDT
Repeating a lie over and over again worked for the Bush administration. Fortunately, the public is starting to wake up and McCain''s lies won''t work here. It''s really quite simple - Obama''s tax relief goes only to those earning less that $250,000; McCain''s goes to all income levels with the greatest proportion going to multi-millionaires. McCain does not show how he will pay for his tax cuts other than to say he will ''cut spending''
Reply to this comment
by trbundro1277 June 12, 2008 5:49 PM PDT
Barack Obama told a crowd of predominately white, middle class voters today that his tax plan will provide three times more relief than John McCain%u2019s proposed cuts. He charged McCain with only helping the wealthiest families, saying that his tax cuts will only go to households earning more than $2.8 million a year.
*** This is the reason I will vote for Barak Obama in November! Mccain doesn''t have a clue on the economy! Giving only the wealthiest of Americans is not going to help the economy, that will only make problems get worse. The wealthier American aren''t spending money that they save from tax breaks, they are hording it in banks, that is why Bushinomics of trickle down don''t work. The rich people aren''t letting the money trickle down, they are hording it away!
Reply to this comment
by jy2008 June 12, 2008 5:52 PM PDT
Do you have to cut tax in order to cut spending?

Or

You want to increase tax in order to increase spending?

Or

Can you cut tax and cut spending?

Or

Can you cut tax and increase spending?

Or

You want to increase tax on rich in order to increase spending on poor?

What is the fair answer here?




Reply to this comment
by trbundro1277 June 12, 2008 5:56 PM PDT
What is the fair answer here?
Posted by jy2008 at 05:52 PM : Jun 12, 2008
*** having rich people pay their fair share of taxes is the fair answer here. How bad is it when Bill Gates came out and said he pays less in taxes than his secretary that makes only 40,000 bucks per year. Why should people paying 40,000 bucks per year pay more in taxes than the head CEO of Microsoft? Wealthier Americans DO NOT help the economy when they hord the money away in savings accounts. If Wealther Americans got tax cuts based on the money they spend, that might be a different story, but just giving Bill Gates, Walmart Execs, and Wallstreet people tax cuts hurts the economy alot more than it helps!
Reply to this comment
by trbundro1277 June 12, 2008 6:01 PM PDT
What is the fair answer here?
Posted by jy2008 at 05:52 PM : Jun 12, 2008
If you make over 2.8 million dollars per year, you can afford to pay more in taxes than me, since I only make 8 bucks per hour as a manager at a video game store even though I have a bachelors degree. Why should people that make 2.8 million or more get tax cuts? People that make 2.8 million bucks per year, when they get tax cuts, they don''t spend more money on our economy, they spend more money on their trips to other parts of the world, So how does that help the economy? If you give tax breaks to people that make less than 250,000 bucks per year, we will spend the money to pay off debts, by tvs, movies, dvds, video games, property, things that will help the economy! That is why the Bush/Mccain policy of giving very rich people tax cuts is very wrong!
Reply to this comment
by June 12, 2008 6:04 PM PDT
The wealthier Americans do not hoard the money in a bank (but the effect is the same). They invest in companies that in-turn invest in foreign countries. The US does not see this benefit except indirectly in cheaper products from China and more expensive oil from Saudi Arabia.

This also magnifies the job loss at here to those same countries.
Reply to this comment
by cyberus-2009 June 12, 2008 6:10 PM PDT
Taxes shouldn''t be targeted at anyone IMHO.
Same tax rate for everyone starting at $X,000 (personal deduction). No more special rates for capital gains etc .. income is income.
Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 6:21 PM PDT
Obama doesn''t have a clue what will happen when he raises taxes on the investors! They''ll pull their money out and you''ll be standing in soup lines because you won''t be getting ANY OF IT!

And then his other stupid plan is to raise taxes on the upper middle class!!! The ones that are already in a higher tax bracket than you are, and ARE paying more!

If you think raising taxes on businesses is not going to come right out of YOUR pocket then you are sincerely naive!

Obama has NO clue about economics!
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman June 12, 2008 6:52 PM PDT
RowdyWawa,,,,, As if McBush''s "Keep Digging" policy on the economy is good ???

His concept is more outsourcing of American business, national security assets, military assets to foreign countries, & increased War Profiteering

McBush''s policy will explode an increasing deficit in an already weakened economy.
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman June 12, 2008 6:59 PM PDT
RowdyWawa,,,,, Ever check out ultra-conservative McCain''s women''s voting record ???

1, No on Equal Pay for women
2. No on Family & Medical Leave
3. No on Prevention of Unintended Teen Pregnancies
4. No on Abstinence Only Programs be medically accurate and scientifically based.
5. No on opposed Title X, the nation''s family planning program.
6. No on requiring insurance coverage of prescription birth control
7. No on comprehensive *** education
8. No on repealing the "global gag rule."
9. Yes on overturning Roe v. Wade


Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 7:11 PM PDT
RowdyWawa,,,,, As if McBush''''s "Keep Digging" policy on the economy is good ???

His concept is more outsourcing of American business, national security assets, military assets to foreign countries, & increased War Profiteering

McBush''''s policy will explode an increasing deficit in an already weakened economy.


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

Posted by j-whitman at 06:52 PM : Jun 12, 2008

Nahhhhhh, McCain will get people who''ll take a more mature look at economics...and has a better understanding of how taxing actually depletes the economy instead of increases it.
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman June 12, 2008 7:18 PM PDT
RowdyWawa,,,,, That makes absoulty no sense at all ---- Not even a 5th grader would buy that.

McBush championed Bush''s econimic policies.

Obama''s tax policies give more to people than McBush''s, his don''t do squat for the majority of wage earners.
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman June 12, 2008 7:20 PM PDT
RowdyWawa,,, McBush''s mature look ?? Economic advisor who pushed for less regulation of the mortgage industry that helped creat the problems.
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman June 12, 2008 7:23 PM PDT
fenner,,,, You are nuts, trying to push dishonorable rhetoric of any connection to him being a muslem is like me telling you you are a worm & expecting you to disprove it.
Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 7:25 PM PDT
RowdyWawa,,,,, That makes absoulty no sense at all ---- Not even a 5th grader would buy that.

McBush championed Bush''''s econimic policies.

Obama''''s tax policies give more to people than McBush''''s, his don''''t do squat for the majority of wage earners.



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

Posted by j-whitman at 07:18 PM : Jun 12, 2008

Nahhhhhhh, I suspect he''ll get with some good advisors that know how to fix things...

Obama, he''s just a dipwad that THINKS he knows everything after 143 days on the senate floor!

Good God, whatta twerp!
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman June 12, 2008 7:27 PM PDT
RowdyWawa,,,,, Look at his new economic advisor, the HP CEO who got fired for driving down their stock.
Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 7:27 PM PDT
RowdyWawa,,,,, That makes absoulty no sense at all ---- Not even a 5th grader would buy that.

McBush championed Bush''''''''s econimic policies.

Obama''''''''s tax policies give more to people than McBush''''''''s, his don''''''''t do squat for the majority of wage earners.



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

Posted by j-whitman at 07:18 PM : Jun 12, 2008

You forget, Obama''s already supporting a rebate stimulus plan, just like BUSH''s...I mean, see what a dipwad he is?
Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 7:29 PM PDT
Obama''''''''''''''''s tax policies give more to people than McBush''''''''''''''''s, his don''''''''''''''''t do squat for the majority of wage earners.



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

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

Posted by j-whitman at 07:18 PM : Jun 12, 2008

Evidently you didn''t read the economists article that said, neither McCain nor Obama''s tax plans will do a *** thing for the people!
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman June 12, 2008 7:30 PM PDT
RowdyWawa,,,,, Obama''s still smarter than Bush 3 by a long shot, McBush still has no concept of who we are fighting or how to do it..
.. He said our troops don''t matter in his 100 year War Profiteering Occupation in the unecessary war of choice.
Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 7:31 PM PDT
RowdyWawa,,,,, Obama''''s still smarter than Bush 3 by a long shot, McBush still has no concept of who we are fighting or how to do it..
.. He said our troops don''''t matter in his 100 year War Profiteering Occupation in the unecessary war of choice.


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

Posted by j-whitman at 07:30 PM : Jun 12, 2008

Who says, YOU? Somebody that''s naive and gullible to believe Obama''s lies?

McCain never said such a damned thing, and you know it...but you''ll lie for Obama just like your candidate is full of lies!

Bull spit!
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman June 12, 2008 7:33 PM PDT
A detailed analysis of the candidates'' tax plans confirms one of Barack Obama''s top arguments against John McCain: the Arizona senator''s proposals would offer substantial benefits to wealthy Americans.

An analysis of both campaigns proposals by the Washington-based, nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that for people with incomes between $66,354 and $111,645, Obama''s proposals would cut their taxes by more than $1000, compared to around $300 under McCain''s plan. But for Americans with incomes above $603,402, Obama would raise their taxes dramatically, by more than $115,000 a year, while McCain would cut them by $45,000.

"The Obama tax plan would make the tax system significantly more progressive by providing large tax breaks to those at the bottom of the income scale and raising taxes significantly on upper-income earners," the group concludes. "The McCain tax plan would make the tax system more regressive.... It would do so by providing relatively little tax relief to those at the bottom of the income scale while providing huge tax cuts to households at the very top of the income distribution."
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman June 12, 2008 7:36 PM PDT
RowdyWawa,,,,, Figure it out --- McBush said it didn''t matter when the troops come home - His policy is a continous occupation of Iraq
Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 7:36 PM PDT
According to Ben Harris, a Senior Research Associate at the Brookings Institution whom we spoke to yesterday, the takeaway, once the dust settles, is this: If you make less than $250,000, there won''t be a significant difference in your tax burden no matter which of the two candidates gets elected.
Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 7:38 PM PDT
RowdyWawa,,,,, Figure it out --- McBush said it didn''''t matter when the troops come home - His policy is a continous occupation of Iraq


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

Posted by j-whitman at 07:36 PM : Jun 12, 2008

And that''s exactly RIGHT! The troops aren''t coming home tomorrow! The thing we need to be worrying about right now is the SOLUTION, not setting some date to bring them home and making promises you haven''t a clue whether you can keep or NOT!

Worrying about their safety is much more important!
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman June 12, 2008 7:38 PM PDT
RowdyWawa,,,,, Yes, Old John lies on even the war still...Figure it out ---

According to his own rhetoric, there is no reason not to declare ''Mission Accomplished'' & bring our troops home.
Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 7:39 PM PDT
According to Ben Harris, a Senior Research Associate at the Brookings Institution whom we spoke to yesterday, the takeaway, once the dust settles, is this: If you make less than $250,000, there won''''t be a significant difference in your tax burden no matter which of the two candidates gets elected.


Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 7:42 PM PDT
Yup...basically the republicans are into redistribution of wealth and the way they do it is by eliminating the middle class....they take money from the middle class and give it to the already rich upper class republicans.

the republican power base even does this to the republican voting base who are mostly middle class to lower class.

most of the people who live in the red states that vote republican get taken to the cleaners by the people the put in office. Ironic, isn''''t it.


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

Posted by SHURCH4TRUTH at 07:39 PM : Jun 12, 2008

Yep, and Obama''s re-distribution is take people''s hard earned money and re-distribute it to people who don''t want to get off their butts and EARN it!
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman June 12, 2008 7:42 PM PDT
SHURCH4TRUTH,,,, It''s amazing people don''t catch on -- This GOP keeps exploiting citizen''s stupidity & ignorance.

They are betting their lifes, homes, country & national security that the GOP won''t give us the wost possible canidate as they''ve done for 2 elections. --- Don''t figure













Reply to this comment
by j-whitman June 12, 2008 7:44 PM PDT
RowdyWawa,,,,, Every day you prove more & more you are nothing but a soldier for Rush Limbaugh
Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 7:44 PM PDT
SHURCH4TRUTH,,,, It''''s amazing people don''''t catch on -- This GOP keeps exploiting citizen''''s stupidity & ignorance.

They are betting their lifes, homes, country & national security that the GOP won''''t give us the wost possible canidate as they''''ve done for 2 elections. --- Don''''t figure
















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

Posted by j-whitman at 07:42 PM : Jun 12, 2008

The democrats have gone through two prior elections and couldn''t present a candidate that could get the confidence of the people enough to get the White House!

AND THEY''RE DOING IT AGAIN! AS A MATTER OF FACT THEY FORCED IT!

Whatta bunch of dipwads! That''s why I''ve changed to Indpendent! I don''t owe anymore votes to the democratic goofball losers!
Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 7:45 PM PDT
RowdyWawa,,,,, Every day you prove more & more you are nothing but a soldier for Rush Limbaugh


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

Posted by j-whitman at 07:44 PM : Jun 12, 2008

And you''re nothing but an Obama LIAR! You''ve supported and ignored every damned one of HIS LIES!
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman June 12, 2008 7:47 PM PDT
RowdyWawa,,,,, Then you abandoned Hillary & Women''s issues totally.
Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 7:47 PM PDT
According to Ben Harris, a Senior Research Associate at the Brookings Institution whom we spoke to yesterday, the takeaway, once the dust settles, is this: If you make less than $250,000, there won''''''''t be a significant difference in your tax burden no matter which of the two candidates gets elected.
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman June 12, 2008 7:48 PM PDT
RowdyWawa,,, Obama''s lies ??? LOL he''s been more consistant & straight up honest than any canidate ------- On Lying McCain is Bush 3
Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 7:48 PM PDT
RowdyWawa,,,,, Then you abandoned Hillary & Women''''s issues totally.


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

Posted by j-whitman at 07:47 PM : Jun 12, 2008

I haven''t abandoned a damned thing! Hillary Clinton still has my upmost support! As well as women''s rights!

I haven''t lost a *** one of my rights in the last 8 years, even under Bush/Cheney!
Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 7:49 PM PDT
RowdyWawa,,, Obama''''s lies ??? LOL he''''s been more consistant & straight up honest than any canidate ------- On Lying McCain is Bush 3


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

Posted by j-whitman at 07:48 PM : Jun 12, 2008

What bull spit! Obama can''t even repeat the same stance twice in one day! He''ll lie to whoever he''s talking to and tell them what he thinks they want to hear, whether it''s the truth or NOT!
Reply to this comment
by ofbyfor1 June 12, 2008 7:53 PM PDT
Yep, and Obama''''s re-distribution is take people''''s hard earned money and re-distribute it to people who don''''t want to get off their butts and EARN it!

Posted by RowdyWicca at 07:42 PM : Jun 12, 2008

Sure Rowdy, as if everyone and anyone who is out of work right now in this cr@ppy economy is there because they don''t want to work. The classic Republican myth of ''lazy Americans''. I think that''s an insult to the citizens of this country. The vast majority of unemployed people WANT jobs. Unfortunately, companies are biting the bullet and cutting budgets and jobs are few and far between.
Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 7:53 PM PDT
According to Ben Harris, a Senior Research Associate at the Brookings Institution whom we spoke to yesterday, the takeaway, once the dust settles, is this: If you make less than $250,000, there won''''''''''''''''t be a significant difference in your tax burden no matter which of the two candidates gets elected.
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman June 12, 2008 7:54 PM PDT
Rowdy,,,, The Brookings Intitution ??

To this day, Brookings is commonly, and inaccurately, dubbed "liberal" (e.g., Baltimore Sun, 8/9/98; Cincinnati Enquirer, 7/30/98; Dallas Morning News, 7/1/98; AP, 5/29/98). CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg even publicly chastised one of his colleagues for not tagging Brookings as "liberal" in his reporting (Wall Street Journal op-ed, 2/13/96). It''s called "centrist" almost as often, but never "conservative," though that label would be more accurate than "liberal."

In fact, much of Brookings'' top brass has come from Republican administrations. Its current president, Michael Armacost, was an undersecretary of state for the Reagan administration and ambassador to Japan under Bush. Brookings'' president from 1977 to 1995, Bruce MacLaury, spent most of his career in the Federal Reserve, with a stint in the Nixon Treasury Department.
Reply to this comment
by ofbyfor1 June 12, 2008 7:55 PM PDT
He''''ll lie to whoever he''''s talking to and tell them what he thinks they want to hear, whether it''''s the truth or NOT!

Posted by RowdyWicca at 07:49 PM : Jun 12, 2008

You ought to look in the mirror when you say that, Rowdy. You wouldn''t accept a ''fact'' if JC himself came down from heaven and slapped you in the face with it. There''s a HUGE difference between wisdom and cynicism, lady.
Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 7:56 PM PDT
Sure Rowdy, as if everyone and anyone who is out of work right now in this cr@ppy economy is there because they don''''t want to work. The classic Republican myth of ''''lazy Americans''''. I think that''''s an insult to the citizens of this country. The vast majority of unemployed people WANT jobs. Unfortunately, companies are biting the bullet and cutting budgets and jobs are few and far between.


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

Posted by ofbyfor1 at 07:53 PM : Jun 12, 2008

Then tell some of them come down here...I''ve got three shifts I can''t even fill!

I''m about as as lazy as it gets, and I found a job...when there were none to be had!
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman June 12, 2008 7:56 PM PDT
Rowdy,,,, You haven''t been paying close attention to who is behind The Brookings Intitution ---- It''s this establishment''s Think Tank
Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 7:57 PM PDT
According to Ben Harris, a Senior Research Associate at the Brookings Institution whom we spoke to yesterday, the takeaway, once the dust settles, is this: If you make less than $250,000, there won''''''''''''''''t be a significant difference in your tax burden no matter which of the two candidates gets elected.
Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 7:58 PM PDT
Obama, meanwhile, is proposing an estate tax exemption of $3.5 million %u2013 which means that if your estate is worth less than $3.5 million, you won''t pay the estate tax. He wants to increase the rate, however, for those who do have estates above that threshold. (Obama''s Director of Economic Policy Jason Furman argued on a Tuesday conference call that "99.7 percent of estates would not face the estate tax.")
Reply to this comment
by ofbyfor1 June 12, 2008 7:59 PM PDT
It''''s called "centrist" almost as often, but never "conservative," though that label would be more accurate than "liberal."

Posted by j-whitman at 07:54 PM : Jun 12, 2008

ANYthing even vaguely to the left of the neocons is now considered by their ''base'' to be ''liberal''. The issue isn''t so much that liberals are so far to the left (granted, with some exceptions), it''s that the far right has moved so spectacularly to the uber-right.
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman June 12, 2008 7:59 PM PDT
RowdyWicca,,,, Try relocating to a higher populated area, or go recruiting with offers that allow others to relocate.
Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 7:59 PM PDT
Obama has taken to criticizing McCain on economic policy by saying he "wants to add $300 billion more in tax breaks and loopholes for big corporations and for the wealthiest Americans." He points specifically to $1.2 billion in tax breaks for Exxon, "a company that just recorded the highest profits in history."

The Exxon tax breaks he mentions, however, don''t appear to have resulted from some specific exception for the company, but are included in preexisting across-the-board corporate tax cuts. When we asked about Obama''s claim, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds hit back with this: "In 2005, Barack Obama was the only candidate in this race to vote for Vice President Cheney''s energy bill, which provided billions of dollars of direct subsidies for big companies like Exxon Mobil. So for him to take issue with John McCain''s position of keeping taxes low makes no sense and ignores his record."
Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 8:02 PM PDT
RowdyWicca,,,, Try relocating to a higher populated area, or go recruiting with offers that allow others to relocate.


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

Posted by j-whitman at 07:59 PM : Jun 12, 2008

I did...I relocated to the megaplex from a city of 2,000!

What''s your point?
Reply to this comment
by ofbyfor1 June 12, 2008 8:02 PM PDT
Then tell some of them come down here...I''''ve got three shifts I can''''t even fill!

I''''m about as as lazy as it gets, and I found a job...when there were none to be had!

Posted by RowdyWicca at 07:56 PM : Jun 12, 2008

You''re assuming they have the money to move. It can be extremely expensive. And for shift work that pays how much per hour?
Reply to this comment
by rowdywicca June 12, 2008 8:03 PM PDT
You''''re assuming they have the money to move. It can be extremely expensive. And for shift work that pays how much per hour?


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

Posted by ofbyfor1 at 08:02 PM : Jun 12, 2008

I had the money to move myself, my car, and my clothes, 271 miles to find work!

What''s your point?
Reply to this comment
See all 206 Comments

About From The Road

Description for From the Road

  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented