[UPDATE] Feb. 25. SEE NEW INFO BELOW IN ALL CAPS.
There are really only three possibilities left in the presidential race: Mrs. Clinton, Obama and McCain. Many promises are made during campaigns. The candidates try to promise what they believe voters want to hear, and what they think will get them elected.
Well, how are those promises going? The National Taxpayers Union has analyzed the promises and has made some estimates on the costs of the promises. I will list below in declining order the cost of the candidates’ promises.
Barack Obama: $287 billion ACTUALLY LARRY KUDLOW ESTIMATES OBAMA’S PROMISES AT OVER $800 BILLION! WHERE’S THAT GOING TO COME FROM? ALSO, THE WRITER OF THIS ARTICLE SAYS, “Obama is the most liberal U.S. senator, with a voting record actually to the left of Bernie Sanders, Vermont’s self-proclaimed socialist.” SEE THE ARTICLE HERE.
Mrs. Clinton: $218.2 billion
John McCain: $6.9 billion
Now how do you suppose this new spending is going to be paid for? Hmmmmm?
Will someone enlighten me on how either Obama’s or Mrs. Clinton’s proposed new spending will help out country and how we are going to pay for it? Can anyone defend this? Please help me out!
February 22, 2008 at 8:54 am
One of Obama’s election goals is as follows, as indicated on his website: “Obama will give the Treasury Department the tools it needs to stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350 billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid.” I have no idea what this $350 billion in tax shelters and offshore tax havens is, but if it is real, and he can really do it, then I guess that covers the $287 billion. I’m not saying I support Obama, I’m just trying to collect facts.
February 22, 2008 at 9:37 am
Wes, first of all it is a bit naive to believe that Obama will actually stop or significantly reduce off-shore tax shelters. But one must ask why poeple put money off-shore in the first place. The primary reason is to avoid the excessive taxation here in the US!
Second, Obama also says that he wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts “for the wealthy.” What a straw man for a # of reasons.
1. Many people forget that most of the taxes are paid by the highest earners. That is a fact.
2. These earners are by and large not the “wealthy.” They are by and large mom and pop businesses. You roll the tax cuts back and the ripple effect will be devasting for the economy. Low wage people will lose jobs and prices will increase to offset the business owners’ higher taxes. This is basic Economics 101.
3. It is a myth that the Bush tax cuts benefited the wealthy. Look at this:
The bottom line is that Obama’s proposals will severly hurt the economy, and the folks who can least afford the disastrous results will be hurt the greatest.
Comments?
February 22, 2008 at 11:27 am
Thanks for the info. I’ll keep researching and learning.
February 22, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Wes, if you don’t mind me asking, who do you support in the presidential election?
February 22, 2008 at 11:50 pm
The facts are that all candidates lie and all candidates make promises, many of which they never intend to fulfill; it’s all part of getting elected. The question is, which candidate has the highest level of integrity outside of the election process. Is it the woman who should have been convicted of fraud and who had a business partner mysteriously and suspiciously die? Or, is it the the man who proudly and jokingly admits to smoking pot and snorting cocaine? Ahh, the list could go ad nauseum (oh wait, I’ already to that point). The sad fact is that none of the remaining Democratic candidates have any integrity.
February 23, 2008 at 9:11 am
“Integrity” is not a noun I would ever expect to be used adjectively (as nouns can be) to modify the noun “democrat.” Unless, of course, it is meant in a pure technical and not a moral sense. A toilet bowl, for example, can have integrity, meaning it is not cracked. I wouldn’t serve punch from it, though.