Obama slams McCain for tax cut flip-flop

[RunInRed 16,487]

This is going to be a key argument come November:

(CNN) — Barack Obama suggested Thursday John McCain reversed his position on the Bush tax cuts in order to win the Republican nomination.

Speaking with reporters on his campaign plane, Obama noted the Arizona senator was a onetime opponent to the tax cuts, and said he has since reversed his position for political reasons.

"That was how, I guess, you got your ticket punched to be the Republican nominee," he said. "But he was right then, and he's wrong now."

McCain has said he supports the tax cuts now because of the economic slowdown and the stimulus potential they offer.

Obama also said he is against the tax cuts because they are an example of a "flawed fiscal policy."

"The notion that we would pile up more mounds of debt, literally borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for tax breaks for people who don't need them and weren't even asking for them I think is unfortunate," he said. "And I think it's an example of the kinds of flawedffiscal policies that have gotten us in such a hole under this administration and a republican congress."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[Tigermike 3,054]

This is going to be a key argument come November:

There will be quite a few and Obama doesn't look so good across the board. There is a clear difference in the two candidates and once the general public sees how far left Obama is there will be a cooling. Obama has positioned himself so far to the left there is no way he can make the traditional "move to the center". All those leftists supporting him would howl big time.

Also there is no real indicator that all those Hillary supporters would in turn support Obama. It's going to get interesting.

[RunInRed 16,487]

Yes, I agree, there are clear differences. One candidate wants to stay the course of the Bush administration, the other wants balanced budgets, deficit reductions, tax code fairness and on and on.

As for Hillary supporters:

"Once one of us has the nomination there will be a great effort to unify the Democratic party and we will do so, because, remember I have a lot of supporters who have voted for me in very large numbers and I would expect them to support Senator Obama if he were the nominee," she said.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[Auburn85 432]

why raise taxes if we are in a recession(afterall alot more people believe we are in one now)?

McCain didn't want to raise taxes in 01 and 05. Why would McCain want to raise taxes now? Call it a"rollback" call it "pre- Bush tax rates." When the current tax rate for the evil rich is around 35% and if it's not made permanent, the tax rate increases to around 39.6% This would be a tax increase.

[RunInRed 16,487]

Actually, McCain favored the 39% upper tax bracket in '01, '03 and '05. It was only once he started running for the nomination that he favored making the tax cuts permanent.

[Auburn85 432]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080313/ap_on_...congress_budget

Senate backs some tax cuts, nixes others By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer

2 hours, 51 minutes ago

The Senate on Thursday gave a sweeping endorsement to some of President Bush's tax cuts but rejected renewing others as all three major presidential candidates interrupted their campaigns to cast key votes on the budget.

The chamber voted 52-47 to reject a move by Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., to extend Bush's tax cuts for middle- and higher-income taxpayers, investors and people inheriting businesses and big estates.

That vote came immediately after the Senate gave a sweeping 99-1 tally to an amendment by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., endorsing cuts aimed at low-income workers, married couples and people with children.

The votes are mostly symbolic, but they put senators in both parties on the record for when the tax cuts actually expire in three years.

Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain, Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, voted for the full roster of Bush tax cuts. Rivals Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., both voted against them.

The developments came as the Senate began a full day of votes on a $3 trillion Democratic budget blueprint for 2009. The nonbinding plan envisions a balanced budget in four years and promises generous increases for many domestic programs, but achieves those goals only by assuming major tax increases when Bush's tax cuts expire.

Obama and Clinton both promise to reverse Bush's tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they'll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more.

Opponents of "pork barrel" projects expected to lose a late-night vote to ban such earmarks for a year, despite the endorsement of all three presidential candidates.

Across the Capitol, the House resumed debate on a companion Democratic measure predicting larger surpluses while allowing $683 billion worth of tax increases over five years with the expiration of Bush's tax cuts.

A Republican alternative that largely mirrored a plan by McCain to permanently extend Bush's tax cuts and eliminate the alternative minimum tax was expected to fail badly, with party moderates distancing themselves from the GOP plan's huge cuts in popular programs like Medicare, housing, community development, and the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled. Such cuts were needed to make room for big tax cuts and still project a balanced budget.

Congress' annual budget debate involves a nonbinding budget resolution that sets the stage for subsequent bills affecting taxes, benefit programs such as Medicare, and the annual appropriations bills. Unless such follow-up legislation is passed, however, the budget debate has little real effect and is mostly about making statements about party priorities.

This is such a year. Congress rarely tackles difficult budget issues as elections loom, and a standoff with Bush means that Democrats may even take a pass on advancing the 12 annual appropriations bills.

The rival budget plans display the difficult trade-offs facing the next president, who must weigh attempting to balance the budget with tax cuts that expire at the end of 2010 and spending programs popular with Democrats and Republicans alike.

"The biggest issue in this campaign is going to be your taxes," Bush said Wednesday night at a GOP fundraiser. "I think the biggest issue in this campaign is which side of the political divide is going to let you keep your money, and which side is going to raise your taxes."

The first year of an administration is typically when heavy lifting on the budget is done, but each candidate's campaign plans seem to promise more than they can deliver. McCain's tax cuts would require applying a meat cleaver to spending, while the Democrats promise spending plans that would enlarge the deficit or require too-large tax increases.

The White House forecasts the deficit for the current year at $410 billion, a near record.

On Capitol Hill, Democrats trumpeted their plan for putting the budget back in surplus while also making investments in infrastructure, education, community development, clean energy and other programs. It also avoids $196 billion worth of Bush-proposed cuts to Medicare and the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled.

Democrats in the House and Senate are divided on taxes. The House budget plan assumes elimination of the full roster of Bush tax cuts.

In the Senate, however, Democrats offered an amendment to renew tax cuts including the 10 percent tax bracket on the first $7,825 of income for individuals, the $1,000 per child tax credit, and estate tax relief. But the tax plan offered by Baucus would eat up virtually all the planned surpluses while allowing income tax rates to bounce back to pre-Bush levels, as would taxes on dividends and capital gains on stock and real estate sales.

Under both Democratic plans, tax rates would increase by 3 percentage points for each of the 25 percent, 28 percent and 33 percent brackets. At present, the 25 percent bracket begins at $31,850 for individuals and $63,700 for married couples. The 35 percent bracket on incomes over $349,700 would jump to 39.6 percent.

Senate Republicans countered with an amendment that would extend income tax cuts and current rates on investments, but the move would mean the budget would stay in the red, producing deficits of about $130 billion in 2012 and $160 billion in 2013.

The Democratic plans would provide generous, greater-than-inflation increases for domestic agency budgets. They both endorse Bush's even more generous $36 billion, or 7 percent, increase for the core Pentagon budget.

___

The bills are H. Con. Res. 312 and S. Con. Res. 70.

___

On the Net:

House Budget Committee: http://budget.house.gov

Senate Budget Committee: http://budget.senate.gov

[RunInRed 16,487]

At least in the Obama plan (which I've read..have you?) those increases on the middle class would be offset by new earned income tax credits. Also, any senior citizen making less than 50k would be tax exempt all together. You are only telling half the story. Effectively (net), the only "tax increase" or "rollback" would be on earners in the 35% effective tax bracket (top 1%) and on the captial gains tax.

[Auburn85 432]

The article not MY WORDS, said anything of a tax increase on the midle class.

i made no mention of middle class tax increases in the mccain flip flop on taxes comment.

wouldn't it just be easier and less confusing to keep the middle-class income tax rate the same rather than making all these new deductions to offset the increase?

[RunInRed 16,487]

The article not MY WORDS, said anything of a tax increase on the midle class.

i made no mention of middle class tax increases in the mccain flip flop on taxes comment.

wouldn't it just be easier and less confusing to keep the middle-class income tax rate the same rather than making all these new deductions to offset the increase?

I'm struggling a bit to validate the articles assumptions of Obama wanting to raise the 25, 28, and 33 bracket limits. I have not heard or ready (directly) where Obama has put the proposition forward. I have heard him talk about the earn income credits (which I assume would offset this - if this is the case) ... otherwise, the credits would in effect be a TAX BREAK for middle class earners and a tax increase on the top 1%. Sounds logical enough to me.

[Auburn85 432]

what percentage of income tax should the rich pay?

i still feel that if obama wants middle class people to pay less in taxes, the easiest solution would be to lower the income tax rate. not have them pay a higher rate and then, have deductions and credits to offset the higher tax rate and perhaps there be enough deductions and credits to have them ultimately pay a lower rate. what's the point of going through all of that?

[autiger4life 3]

what percentage of income tax should the rich pay?

100%

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I still think the federal income tax is illegal and should be wiped off the face of the earth. Congress shold be paid nothing for their services becasue they don't represent the people, rather the lobbyist. So let's let the corporations pay the income tax because that's who is best represented in Washington, DC.

[RunInRed 16,487]

what percentage of income tax should the rich pay?

i still feel that if obama wants middle class people to pay less in taxes, the easiest solution would be to lower the income tax rate. not have them pay a higher rate and then, have deductions and credits to offset the higher tax rate and perhaps there be enough deductions and credits to have them ultimately pay a lower rate. what's the point of going through all of that?

Well define "rich"... I have no problem with those making more than 250k/yr paying around 39%.

I don't think that's what happening...again, show me (directly) where Obama is proposing to raise middle class tax brackets.

[Auburn85 432]

what percentage of income tax should the rich pay?

i still feel that if obama wants middle class people to pay less in taxes, the easiest solution would be to lower the income tax rate. not have them pay a higher rate and then, have deductions and credits to offset the higher tax rate and perhaps there be enough deductions and credits to have them ultimately pay a lower rate. what's the point of going through all of that?

Well define "rich"... I have no problem with those making more than 250k/yr paying around 39%.

I don't think that's what happening...again, show me (directly) where Obama is proposing to raise middle class tax brackets.

under the current democratic budget proposals (according to the AP article on yahoo) a YES vote by Hillary and Obama would mean eliminating the Bush income tax cuts. Not just on the top 1%. And it's not just one buget plan. It's 2.

this is the tax rate for people as of 2007:

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html

If taxable income is over-- But not over-- The tax is:

$178,350- $349,700/ $41,810.00 plus 33% of the amount over 178,350

$349,700 -no limit / $98,355.50 plus 35% of the amount over 349,700

[arnaldoabru 11]

This is going to be a key argument come November:

There will be quite a few and Obama doesn't look so good across the board. There is a clear difference in the two candidates and once the general public sees how far left Obama is there will be a cooling. Obama has positioned himself so far to the left there is no way he can make the traditional "move to the center". All those leftists supporting him would howl big time.

Also there is no real indicator that all those Hillary supporters would in turn support Obama. It's going to get interesting.

No they won't.Where are they going to go?It's like this silly right thing that the neo-cons/religious right won't vote for McCain.Yes they will.Again,where are they going to go.Not vote.Vote for Obama.

[Tigermike 3,054]

Yes, I agree, there are clear differences.

Talk about a flip flop. FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it. (Jan 2008)

No it wasn't a flip flop it was just another lie from a pandering lib. Tell the far lefties clammering for change what they want to hear, then do the opposite. Lib dems are the worlds best panders. You should be so proud.

On one hand a conservative.

On the far left the #1 rated liberal in the senate.

Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws

On the far left Obama: Opposes

On the other hand McCain: Strongly Favors

Absolute right to gun ownership

On the far left Obama: Opposes

On the other hand McCain Strongly Favors

Privatize Social Security

On the far left Obama: Strongly Opposes

On the other hand McCain Strongly Favors

Parents choose schools via vouchers

On the far left Obama: Opposes

On the other hand McCain Strongly Favors

Repeal tax cuts on wealthy

On the far left Obama Strongly Favors

On the other hand McCain: Opposes

Death Penalty

On the far left Obama Strongly Opposes

On the other hand McCain Strongly Favors

Abortion

On the far left Obama Strongly Supports

On the other hand McCain: Opposes

[WREGL3 0]

I still think the federal income tax is illegal and should be wiped off the face of the earth. Congress shold be paid nothing for their services becasue they don't represent the people, rather the lobbyist. So let's let the corporations pay the income tax because that's who is best represented in Washington, DC.

amen