If Obama wins is anyone else afraid
Find a Conversation
If Obama wins is anyone else afraid
| Sat, 10-04-2008 - 5:25pm |
of what will happen to our health care and our nation's security? I am paranoid.
| Sat, 10-04-2008 - 5:25pm |
Pages
You asking me for proof? How about you get some of the books to read which is written by his own "friends". In fact, it was published in Chicago Tribune, NY Times, Washington Post and many other major and local newspapers and publication's besides TV stations.
Also, while in Senate, he vote 94 times for increase in tax on all levels, he vote against our military support...all those and more vote and outcome could be found on US Government web site/Senate/Congress/Legislative Bill... It spells out what was bill for, who vote "yes"/"no" for that bill etc...They do have all of it on the record for every politician by name, date and bill#.
If you want to find and know something you got to invest time looking for it and reading about it.
Yay!
"either very liberal yourself, or terribly ignorant, and unconcerned about our country."
Sorry, I know you're new here and might not be aware, so I won't report it, but we aren't allowed to speak to each other that way.
<
If you want to find and know something you got to invest time looking for it and reading about it.>>
You should take your own advice.
After looking at every one of the 94 votes that the RNC includes in its tally, we find:
- The GOP sometimes counted two, three and even four votes on the same measure. We found their tally included a total of 17 votes on seven measures, effectively padding their total by 10.
- The majority of the 94 votes – 53 of them, including some mentioned above – were on budget measures, not tax bills, and would not have resulted in any tax change. Four other votes were non-binding motions related to conference report negotiations.
It's true that most of the votes the GOP counts would either have increased taxes for some, or set budget targets calling for such increases. But by repeating their inflated 94-vote figure, the McCain campaign and the GOP falsely imply that Obama has pushed indiscriminately to raise taxes for nearly everybody. A closer look reveals that he's voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers. That's consistent with what he's said he'd do as president, which is to raise taxes only on those making more than $250,000 a year.If this type of claim sounds familiar, it’s because George W. Bush's campaign used a similar refrain against John Kerry in 2004, charging that Kerry voted for "higher taxes" a whopping 350 times. We found that claim to be incorrect as well. This time around, Republicans are using some of the same tricky accounting to beef up the number of votes.
By our count, about a quarter of these votes for "higher taxes" – 23 to be exact – are votes Obama cast against changing tax rates from what they were at the time. Taxes would not have gone up. They would have been "higher" only compared to the cuts being proposed.
The RNC admits as much in its documentation on the 94 votes, faulting Obama for voting nine times against lowering the capital gains tax rate, seven times against implementing tax incentives for small businesses, six times against lowering the estate tax and three times against repealing a more than decade-old increase in taxes on Social Security benefits, among other votes. The RNC counts these as votes "for higher taxes" even though Obama voted to keep taxes right where they were.
Seven votes on the RNC's list were votes Obama cast for measures that called for lowering certain taxes broadly and would have paid for the cuts by raising taxes on high-income individuals or corporations. The RNC didn't give Obama credit for voting for the lower taxes, of course.
Two votes were in favor of a "windfall profit tax" on oil companies and handing out the revenue in the form of rebate checks or nonrefundable tax credits to the public. Another favored giving tax benefits to areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma and extending several other tax relief provisions, all of it financed by closing corporate and individual "loopholes" and extending Superfund taxes on corporations, used to pay for toxic waste cleanups. Obama also voted for a refundable tax credit for farmers, paid for by closing a loophole that gives a foreign income tax credit to oil companies. Yet another of these pieces of legislation, an amendment to the 2007 energy bill, would have extended and expanded all kinds of renewable energy tax credits and covered the cost by increasing taxes on oil companies. All of the measures were rejected.
Along the same lines, two of the items the RNC calls votes "against tax incentives for small businesses" were actually votes against Republican counter-measures to Democratic efforts to raise the minimum wage. While Democrats were voting for a measure to raise the minimum wage to $7.25, for example, Republicans offered a substitute that would have held the increase to $6.25 and thrown in a bundle of tax breaks for small businesses as well. Because Obama favored the higher wage package over the Republican alternative, the GOP and McCain count his vote against the GOP alternative as one for "higher taxes."
Several of Obama's votes did indeed favor raising taxes above current levels. But in most cases these increases would have fallen on upper-income individuals or on corporations. And in many cases, the legislation in question called for increasing taxes in order to fund popular programs, a fact not mentioned by the Republican opposition researchers. One such amendment by Sen. Christopher Dodd to a 2006 bill, for example, proposed the creation of a "veterans hospital improvement fund," financed by increasing the capital gains and dividend tax rates on those earning $1 million a year or more. An amendment to a 2009 budget resolution called for restoring the income tax rate on million-dollar-a-year incomes to pre-2001 levels to fund children's education efforts, such as Head Start and school nutrition programs. Amendments to a 2007 budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 83) aimed to set aside $5 billion for emergency responders' communication equipment or funds for port security, both of which said they would be offset by "closing tax loopholes." Others called for increasing funding for a low-income home energy assistance program or restoring cuts slated for vocational education and student loan programs, paid for by closing "corporate tax loopholes."
What do you call a vote to raise taxes on couples earning more than $1 million a year in order to set up a fund to help children in poverty? We counted it, along with all of the other votes mentioned in the last paragraph, as a vote to increase taxes. But it was, of course, more than that.
The 94-vote list includes 17 votes that applied to only seven separate measures, effectively padding the GOP's list by 10. Two or three votes on the same measure are not uncommon in the Senate. The most egregious example is a series of four votes on amendment No. 4189 to a Senate budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 70) in March of this year. First, the Senate voted on the amendment (vote #45), and it was rejected. Then, it voted on a motion to table a motion to reconsider vote #45 (that's vote #46), and then voted on the actual motion to reconsider vote #45 (we're up to vote #47 now). And finally, the Senate voted on the same amendment again (vote #48). It was still rejected.
The RNC counts these as four separate votes for "higher taxes."
Worth noting is that most of the votes on the RNC's list could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes. Of the total, 53 votes were on amendments to budget resolutions or the resolutions themselves. Budget resolutions merely set targets for tax-writing and appropriations committees and don't alter the tax code directly. Another four votes were on motions to instruct House-Senate conferees, which aren't binding either, and are seldom followed.
We agree that many of Obama's votes on these budget measures were clear statements of approval for increased taxes. But those 57 non-binding votes wouldn't have raised anybody's taxes.
Cataloging some of these votes isn't cut-and-dried, and the exercise underscores how easily a campaign can spin the opponent's record. In the end, we listed votes on 54 measures under the "for higher taxes" category (and another seven votes in favor of lowering some taxes and increasing others); but even if the RNC used that figure in its claim, we'd have plenty to say about it. As we mentioned, most of those were measures to tax the rich or corporations; many aimed to fund government programs; and most didn’t actually raise taxes in and of themselves.
The standard we use is fairly generous to the GOP. Twelve votes by Obama in the RNC's list favored extending tax cuts that were slated to expire. We counted those as votes for increasing taxes, since taxpayers would see their rates increase as a result of failing to pass the legislation. Many Democrats argue that such a vote would not raise taxes above what current law provides, and therefore should not be counted as a vote for a tax increase. However, taxpayers aren’t privy to such philosophical legislative discussions and would indeed see their taxes increase if the cuts aren’t extended.
-by Lori Robertson
Chrissy
mom to Aidan 8/21/03
Grayson Blaine 12/30/07
<>
Book titles or names please... Are you referring to Ayers?
<>
Those are exact quotes from McCain's stump speeches and have been debunked. McCain also voted no on troop funding. two different bills.. the one Obama voted no on was a blank check with no timeframe for withdrawal and the one McCain voted no on had a timeframe. As for the infamous "94 times": http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/tax_tally_trickery.html http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/02/1482533.aspx See? I read too. I also don't take my candidate's stump speech as Gospel and start screaming DICTATORSHIP!!! at the other side.
Other places you can find me:




vi.png" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Our family photo album online!
(password: ballfamily)
border=0>
Other places you can find me:
McCaine health care plan is: if you are covered or not covered by your employer on health care (even if your employer is telling you that you are covered, you are still paying for it) under McCaine health care plan you will be given additional $5000.- credit. If you know past and present tax regulations you must have and file an exemption deductions to claim health care deduction over $5000.-...and usually you could not deduct them if you had the insurance accept for dental, eye doctor and luxury surgery's.
McCain health plan would allow you to deduct your insurance cost if you are buying yourself, a supplemental insurance or out-of-pocket pay doctor in addition of present deduction plus $5000.-
There is a good insurance for single $160.00 a month and for family $250.00. For single person expense for a year would be $1920.- and for entire family would be $3000.-....and they cover everything (ER, X-ray, MRI, Emergency and all other MD's) but do not cover dentist and eye doctor. You can check this site at:
ICanBenefits.com or call 1-800-382-9579
Personally my feelings about Taxes are very similar to the thoughts of a big Gas bubble.
One way or another it has got to come out. Either for are going to fart it out or burp it up.
Unfortunately that is not available here in NY. The general one family Dr visit per year is covered but nothing more than that. With a hubby who is on some expensive meds (which do not have generic versions yet) I cannot pay for health insurance that won't cover us properly.
Other places you can find me:




vi.png" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Our family photo album online!
(password: ballfamily)
border=0>
Other places you can find me:
Pages