Yes, spread the wealth around! Sarah Palin needs more clothes!

Indeed they are. Over on Dreher’s blog he has gone to the defense of Sarah Palin’s shopping spree. I guess he and the other Palinistas out there think that your average Joe and Jane spend around $20K a week on clothing at the high-end outlets in the nation.
Maybe that explains how the GOP could spend us into the hole and call it conservatism. Clearly they have no problem spending gobs of money when they don’t have to earn it.

as there are not really a great percentage of the working class that can even fathom a wage of quarter of a million dollars then this is not an issue needed to be taking up such a big part of front pages. why not do away with what is being broadcasted as differences between the candidates and focus on ALL our likenesses i.e. the problems facing our planet and survival of many future generations of man???let`s work together, nourish the planet and become one with it. we as a whole, need peace, commeraderie and faith, trust and real live loyalty to one another. the hippies of the sixties were slammed for believing these moral-factors were the base for building a more perfect world, not a bad place to start. may GOD bless…s.a.mcintosh

PolitiFact – False McCain Statements – the website provides good links to independent sources for Obama and McCain’s tax plans:
“Obama raises taxes on seniors (and) hard-working families to give welfare to those who pay none.”
John McCain on Thursday, October 16th, 2008 in a Web ad
A new Web ad from John McCain’s campaign features the ubiquitous Joe the Plumber and attacks Barack Obama’s tax plan as “welfare.”
“Obama raises taxes on seniors (and) hard-working families to give welfare to those who pay none,” the announcer says.
In the background is the phrase “$100-billion to those that pay no taxes.”
There are a number of misleading things packed into a tight space here.
McCain’s claim that Obama’s plan will translate to higher taxes for seniors and working families is grossly misleading. As we have pointed out many times, that’s only true if a senior or a family is making more than $250,000 a year, or $200,000 for a single person. Otherwise, it’s generally not the case.
The claim that Obama will raise taxes on seniors and hardworking families? Misleading. Using the term “welfare” to describe refundable tax credits? Not by most people’s definition. That the plan would give payments to people who pay no taxes? Only if you don’t consider payroll taxes as taxes. That all adds up to False.
More detail:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/813/
Estimating Joe the Plumber’s tax bill
“Obama’s statement during the debate that “98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000″ matches the findings of a respected, non-partisan group of tax analysts. For that reason, we rate Obama’s statement True.”
http://tinyurl.com/4ffajm

Julie, I have 4 questions:
1) what percentage of Americans of tax-paying age currently end the tax year with ZERO percent of the tax burden?
2) with a tax credit, what percentage of those will get a check from the feds?
3) what percentage should a working couple earning a combined $250,000 a year (especially in an urban area where that is only a little above average), should they be able to keep? 50%? 40%? Should a couple be able to keep 20% of what they earn?
How much is “fair” (I’ve been trying to get this question answer, but if it has been, it’s rotated off the front page and I didn’t see it)
4) Given Obama’s record on taxes and how he has voted in the past, do you have a reason that we should trust this campaign financial promise any more than we should have the financial commitment that he made about campaign financing?
(I remember Bill Clinton saying something to the effect that he had worked harder than he had ever worked and even though he had promised tax cuts, he just was not able to do it…)

no, no, no, mzellen. these are questions that i have asked of you. don’t pass the work on to someone else.
i want you to tell us just how many people who pay no federal taxes (whether it’s income, social security, or medicare payroll taxes) will receive a check. that is, after all, your argument.
you continue to ignore any other debate on the issue claiming that nobody will answer your question.

no, no, no, mzellen. these are questions that i have asked of you. don’t pass the work on to someone else.
???
I think that expecting a couple to pay upwards of 50% of their earnings is too much.
I’m not the one advocating for the raising of taxes on the group I’ve been talking about. If you want them to pay “their fair share”, I’m asking “what is fair”?
If you want to raise taxes – by how much? I’m not the one wanting to spread the wealth – Obama is.

4) Given Obama’s record on taxes and how he has voted in the past, do you have a reason that we should trust this campaign financial promise any more than we should have the financial commitment that he made about campaign financing?
Okay…I’ll answer…Obama flipped on that financial issue…I see no reason to believe that he won’t flip on this one also.

read the bible jesus paid taxes . so obama wants to help the poor . like jesus did . but the truth is here its all about money . money money . read 1 tim 6 . the reb- parisee hate the poor how can any one say they fellow JESUS and they hate the poor. read prov 17.4-5

it’s been shown that mccain was defending a progressive (or socialist or spread-the-wealth or whatever you want to call it today) tax plan like obama’s. then he was against bush’s tax cuts before he was for them. mccain has flip-flopped so much on this one issue alone, i see no reason for you to believe him.
“I’m not the one wanting to spread the wealth – Obama is.”
then ask obama what he thinks is fair. ask mccain (because his plan “spreads the wealth” too). and i expect since you don’t want progressive taxes, you will refuse any refund coming back to you. good for you for sticking to your guns.
again, your argument is that it’s not fair that someone who pays no federal taxes should get a check from the government. so i ask again,
just how many people who pay no federal taxes (whether it’s income, social security, or medicare payroll taxes) will receive a check?

AR, I’ve said repeatedly that taxes are not the issue. Few people (other than the very poor, who SHOULD not pay taxes) have a problem with paying for the government to run.
What I have an issue with is the concept that a large number of people appear to think that a couple keeping less than 50% of what they earn is “fair”
My position is that a person who pays no income tax should not get a tax refund/credit.
My children (who, given the Democrat run congress and governorship of our state are not able to find jobs) were in this category last year.
so i ask again,
?????
I’ve asked repeatedly about how much if “fair”. I don’t think it’s “fair” for anybody to access income tax refunds when they pay ZERO income taxes.
It doesn’t matter how many there are, “tax credits” are not “tax reductions”. I’ll say that Obama’s plan (assuming that he’s more honest about this financial promise than he was about his finanical promise about campaign financing – which I don’t) would benefit my own personal finances.
But the larger picture is the economy in general. I don’t see a benefit to raising taxes on those who hire the most people.
I’ll see if I can get an answer this time (although I’m not holding my breath)…how much money do you think a couple earning $250,000 a year be able to keep (after federal, state, local, property taxes)? But I won’t hold my breath.

Why should the results of my labor, education, and correct decisions over my life time be “spread” to others? If taxes on income above $250,000 is not enough to give hand outs to those who pay no taxes then what will the floor become 100,000, 50,000, 20,000? Obama is not proposing a tax cut, but a tax refund that means that even those who have made no contribution to maintaining this country will enjoy my success — where were they when my career demanded I put my health if not my life at risk?
Further, Obama GUESSED correctly about the weapons in Iraq — he was not a Senator at the time. As a Senator, he had the opportunity to support the surge in Iraq and he DECIDED not to do so. He failed the first real test he was given and will not admit he was wrong.
Lacks insight, lacks experience, lacks military background —- the only thing he doesn’t lack is an abundance of words.

dear mike the engineer,
you’re sadly misinformed if you think that tax cuts from obama’s plan go to “those who pay no taxes.” go get educated and come back for a real discussion. obama is planning tax cuts, credits, and refunds… just like senator mccain is, only in different areas.
mccain: lacks good judgment, knows nothing of the economy, got captured by the enemy — the only thing he doesn’t lack is prunes.
sincerely,
anonymous the engineer

“I’ve asked repeatedly about how much if ‘fair’. I don’t think it’s ‘fair’ for anybody to access income tax refunds when they pay ZERO income taxes.”
fair is a subjective term. i do think that it’s fair to cut some slack even to people who pay federal taxes even via payroll taxes. why does any tax refund have to come solely from income taxes paid? many people work hard, have their payroll taxes withheld, and never get any tax break. i don’t think that’s fair.
“It doesn’t matter how many there are, “tax credits” are not “tax reductions”. I’ll say that Obama’s plan (assuming that he’s more honest about this financial promise than he was about his finanical promise about campaign financing – which I don’t) would benefit my own personal finances.”
and i’ll coeerct you again, there are 2 types of tax credits – refundable and non-refundable. the current tax code has examples of both. mccain is offering $5000 refundable tax credit in his plan. (and again, i’ll point out that mccain flip-flopped on campaign financing twice, so i don’t know why the hell you’d believe mccain. and he’s is only whining about it because he got his ass stomped in fund raising… i say this as a 4-time obama campaign donor.)
“But the larger picture is the economy in general. I don’t see a benefit to raising taxes on those who hire the most people.”
you mean to a rate lower than reagan and clinton did? by the way, i think that you should have a look at just who obama is consulting on economic and tax policy issues. this is one more reason why i trust obama more on the economy (well that plus the fact that mccain’s eyes glaze over when anyone starts talking economics).
“I’ll see if I can get an answer this time (although I’m not holding my breath)…how much money do you think a couple earning $250,000 a year be able to keep (after federal, state, local, property taxes)? But I won’t hold my breath.”
i’ll answer you again though i doubt that you’ll bother to read it. at least, i won’t hold my breath. last time, though. no more.
i think that everyone single, or married – regardless of their income level should be able to keep all of everything they earn. but that’s not realistic, is it? the reality is that things that our government decides to do on our behalf happens to cost money. things like wars, for example. and things like bailing out banks and lenders to try to stop a global economic implosion. and things like border security, research and development, social security, medicare, and so on. so, it depends on what the government happens to be blowing money on at the time as to how much of that $250,000 is going to be taxed, now doesn’t it? we can’t refund all of everyone’s taxes or we couldn’t fund those things. that’s called fiscal responsibility. as it happens, it has been pointed out that both candidates tax plans will increase the national deficit, but what may shock you is that obama’s will increase the deficit less than mccain’s, even when obama’s plan will benefit the people who are hurting the most. mccain’s plan is the opposite.