Read Between the Lines
Posted by Mike Gehrke on April 16, 2008 at 11:39 AMMcCain pledges to offer help for average Americans, but most of his proposals are aimed at the wealthy and corporations:
But much of what he detailed was a corporate special pleader's dream: a cut in the corporate income tax rate, from 35 percent to 25 percent, a proposal to allow businesses to write off the cost of new equipment and technology from their taxes, a ban on Internet and new cellphone taxes, and a permanent tax credit for research and development. [...] But tax cuts, mostly for corporations and wealthy individuals, remain the centerpiece of McCain's economic agenda.He said his support for making Bush's tax cuts permanent would benefit people from all income levels by making sure that taxes on dividends and capital gains stay low. But most lower- and middle-income investors have the vast majority of their stock and bond holdings in retirement accounts that are exempt from federal taxation.
All in all, McCain's proposals are a veritable dream for high dollar corporations.
And so McCain pledges to continue the irresponsible Bush taxes, but provides no way to pay for them as he slowly backs away from his balanced budget pledge:
Absent from McCain's speech was any pledge to wipe out the federal deficit. Asked about the omission a few hours later at Villanova University outside Philadelphia, McCain told reporters that he would balance the budget within eight years, a retreat from his previous vow to do so within four.
Comments - 21 »
Comments - 21 «
Even Hellen Keller could see that this economic proposal is doomed to fail. It is more extreme than Bush's current debt-riddled economy and there'd be no chance of balancing the budget. There is no sense of balance in this proposal.
I wish someone would have asked him how he was able to reconcile the Bush tax-cuts that once pained his consicence.
John "sell-out" McCain.
Posted by margotb822 on April 16, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Yah Right! Just like there is no way to pay back the Iraq vets! This guy really thinks we are that niave? He should be arrested for impersonating a presidential candidate. Did he sign up on some thought of the day club or read a book on how to be a president for dummies?!Give me a break!
Posted by virgo on April 16, 2008 at 12:33 PM
I watched Hillary's speech in California, Pennsylvania. And after hearing her talk, I'm definitely backing Hillary up :). She has a wealth of knowledge and understands healthcare and all issues fromm the root up.
9 Reasons why the SuperDelegates should choose Hillary as the nominee and let her drive the bus to get America back on top:
#1 Hillary is ready on Day 1
#2 At 3:00AM, I feel extremely confident that Hillary can promptly answer any Federal Reserve problems
#3, Hillary has a plan to pull out the troops
#4 The 'Clinton' name has a proven record of successfully turning the economy around
#5 Hillary has the backing of the former 'Supreme Commander', Wesley Clark
#6 Hillary won every big major states
#7 Hillary would have been our nominee, if FL and MI was allowed to vote
#8 Hillary is willing to try to get everyone ensured, that's passion, that's power, that's a leader. She's a fighter.
#9 In tough times, she was with Bill. In tough times, she'll be with America. She'll wear that flag and fight for America.
Five reasons why Obama should be the Vice President
#1 He won every little state
#2 He's had 4 years in the Senate
#3 He's a junior Senator
#4 He's had had eight years in the Illinois Senate
Look superdelegates, if Hillary had Obama's record, she'll be immediately dumped by me on Day 1.
Obama should just back down and be the VP.
Posted by Free on April 20, 2008 at 06:39 PM
Five other reasons why Obama should be VP
#1 With the problems we have today, he cant solve them with his limited knowlege and Junior Background. Please see Bush II, part 2000-2007, for reference on un-qualified candidate hard at-work.
#2 He's ready for training wheels on Day 1.
#3 He needs time to develop an international presence.
#4 Hillary can take the heat in the General Election for him.
#5 He is still young.
Posted by Free on April 20, 2008 at 06:47 PM
CNN took almost 30 minutes longer than the other channels to declare Senator Clinton as the winner. I wonder what took them so long. Where they scrammbling to regroup after the stunning loss of their candidate. All throughout the last 7 days, CNN, the Obama propaganda channel was trying to convince everybody Senator Obama was narrowing the lead. CNN keeps talking about Math and how Senator Clinton doesn't have a mathematical chance of getting the nomination. Of-course what they fail to mention ever is niether does Senator Obama.
Tim Russert and the rest of the Maria Shiver channel was shifting the goal post and trying their best to a positive spin to a decisive defeat of their candidate.
For the first time in the ABC debate, the moderators didn't ask Senator Obama if he was comfortable and needed pillows. For the first time he had to answer some tough questions. And Senator Obama looked totally lost. Contrast that with how Senator Clinton handled Time Russert in the MSNBC candidate. Is Senator Obama capable of standing the "heat in the kitchen". And now Senator Obama refuses to any further debate; it is very clear he cannot handle it if there is a balanced moderator of the debate; he realizes he cannot get Tim Russert every time.
Contrast the after PA results speeches by Senator Cliton and Senator Obama. Senator Obama gave the same speech he has been giving since Iowa. It was very impressive for the initial few times. Now it sounds stale. Senator Clinton on the other hand was brilliant and connecting with the voters.
It is very clear Senator Obama cannot close the deal. It is equally clear Senator Clinton is heading for a majority of popular vote. If Senator Obama stops disenfranchising voters in Florida and MI, Senator Clinton has a good chance to win the pledged delegates as well.
Senator Obama has made it clear he will not be Senator Clinton's VP. I think a Clinton- Ford (of TN) ticket would be very strong.
Posted by SamSarma on April 23, 2008 at 01:53 AM
I noticed it when I heard Hillary say,in private that the Republicans still don't have a que as to the State of the State. What in the world is wrong with them? What gene was left out of the Republicans that makes them so blind sighted?
Madam President has a plan, a policy for every possible branch of the Executive Office. Set it up Madam President and choose your cabinet.
Posted by oneforall on April 23, 2008 at 10:23 AM
I noticed it when I heard Hillary say,in private that the Republicans still don't have a que as to the State of the State. What in the world is wrong with them? What gene was left out of the Republicans that makes them so blind sighted?
Madam President has a plan, a policy for every possible branch of the Executive Office. Set it up Madam President and choose your cabinet.
Posted by oneforall on April 23, 2008 at 10:24 AM
I noticed it when I heard Hillary say,in private that the Republicans still don't have a que as to the State of the State. What in the world is wrong with them? What gene was left out of the Republicans that makes them so blind sighted?
Madam President has a plan, a policy for every possible branch of the Executive Office. Set it up Madam President and choose your cabinet.
Posted by oneforall on April 23, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Sounds like more Reaganomics to me. The republicans just can't or refuse to see that Trickle Down economics do not work. Tax cuts for the rich do not trickle down. Only when you put money in working class America does the economy grow.
Posted by chambax2 on April 23, 2008 at 06:49 PM
Yes, Obama doesnt like to solve anything that is hard. His healthcare plan does not insure everyone. He's not willing to 'try'.
You know Thomas Edison created the light bulb after 1000 tries. To me, Hillary is Thomas Edison. She's willing to try.
To me, Hillary will be harder to kick around in the general election. Obama will be a piece of cake!
Overall, I am so happy that John Edwards is not endorsing anyone, but embracing both. He should continue to do so. He's smart!!
I like the way he's not endorsing them, so they have to fight for every vote. Yeah, make them sweat for votes! This will help remind them who voted them into office.
Posted by Free on April 23, 2008 at 07:13 PM
McCain has stopped Republican in NC from running Jeremy Wright commercials on Obama.
Wow! How nice of the guy! But let me tell ya, in the general election, when McCain is desperate, he will let them run Jeremy Wright commercials.
Posted by Free on April 23, 2008 at 07:21 PM
I don't like how hillary has taken millions from the Heath Industry lobbyists. They must believe that her heath plan will benefit them,($$$$). Just how much will this cost the american people. I think making it more affordable to start would be a better move. I also don't like her plan that people would be forced to buy it. What happens if they don't, do they go to jail or something? Hillary has run her campaign with big donors with big dollars from the top. Barack got millions of donors with small donations. She didn't plan past Feb 5, he did. Now she has caught on late to the internet. The last debate on ABC was a hit job on Obama. When they offered him the first chance to attack hillary on bosnia, he said that everyone makes mistakes. Then they gave hillary a turn. Did she offer the olive branch back, no, she broke the branch and went after him. I would prefer a president that is above all of this petty attacking on non-issues, it hurts the party and the country.
Posted by newsjunkie on April 23, 2008 at 10:49 PM
As far as I'm concerned, Obama needs to be kicked around and this election is a good test for him. This pressure is nothing compared to what is waiting for the next President of the United States.
I just have more faith in someone who understands legislation top down, then someone who cant figure out how to solve them and cant explain to me, how to solve them.
Yes, Hillary's healthplan isnt that great, but you have to start somewhere. Every american should be able to have access to healthcare. I"m so so sure there's a way to do it.
I hope that when she enters offcie, she posts a site up and asks for recommendations and ask young people for ideas.
A friend of mine has great ideas.
Posted by Free on April 24, 2008 at 07:03 PM
a hit job for Obama? That's great! This is only the beginning and this is only a small test.
When someone becomes the President, you'll be kicked around and you have to be ready for it.
Posted by Free on April 24, 2008 at 07:11 PM
Hillary will do a great job KICKING around John McCain.
Posted by Free on April 24, 2008 at 07:16 PM
It is a shame that Republican Party leadership continues to push divisive financial politics within their own party’s constituents.
The Republican leaders biggest divisive mistake among their own business constituents was back in the 1980’s when the party’s leaders would not fight for small businesses and join a Democratic caucus taking corporate insurance companies to the Supreme Court over price gauging.
The then current Republican administration lobbied for corporations to have a business right to charge whatever businesses want regarding the overstated 250% insurance premium increases due to the increase in the cost of technology at the time. Hospital corporations then continued to take financial advantage of the insurance companies who took further advantage of the hospitals with today’s Republican blessed premiums. (You see, neither would the hospitals, including the Catholic operated, join the Democratic Caucus in taking the insurance companies to the Supreme Court...?)
It is important to understand however that past and present employer/employee agreements for health care were none of the Republican Party’s governmental business to meddle with, divide and conquer. It’s almost like Republican leadership, inadvertently or not, violated and integrated privatization into the private public and business relationship when it came to heath care. Perhaps with a plan to someday force everyone off subsidized-government funded health care, including Social Security Medicare, by encouraging workers to pay for health care directly?
The result of what appears to be a Republican led long-term agenda now leads to the creation of a universal health care plan that we would hope neither party can take away from the public again for political purposes. However, some American’s are still not happy with that idea because the government would be still involved in the public’s health care finances, which would still incite political privatization purposes from a possible future Republican Administration. Like it or not, thanks to Republican leadership, that’s where America is today after Republican leadership has altered the employer/employee health care relationship with their financial politics of public neglect and corporate appeasement.
Just how much and how many years do you think hospitals have to pay for one, two or maybe three CAT SCAN machines that they bought back in the 1980’s anyway? Don’t you think these machines paid for their selves from profit a hundred times over by now?
How many times do you think hospitals and health facilities have to replace their Ultra Scan machines to justify such fees for services for such technology? Do these businesses now need further tax cuts with depreciation on their machines like John McCain wants to give them?
Corporate economics do matter to America but we must have principles that guide corporate services meeting public needs when it comes to health care and protecting the consumer from price gauging.
Now, the hospitals and insurance companies are going to get what they deserve from a Democratic Administration, ‘government controlled fees for health care’ under a universal health plan...what a permanent shame...like the permanent death of one who couldn’t afford politically sensationalized heath care costs.
Posted by ElizabethJW on April 25, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Hospitals usually have their own health care coverage for their own employees and you can’t tell me that hospitals raised their health coverage premiums 250% for their employees like the insurance companies raised employers premiums in the 1980’s. I think people at these hospitals that ran these programs knew what was going on because the new technology proved less of a financial increase than 250% to their own health programs that paid the cost of their own hospital services for their employees.
So I think there were people in the medical field who knew insurance companies were over-charging the American public and kept silent about it when the Democrats took these companies to the Supreme Court, out of their own financial greed.
Maybe it is kind of naive for me to think that hospitals should have helped the Democratic Party take insurance companies to the Supreme Court back then but if hospitals wanted people or insurance companies to be able to continue to afford hospital services they should have spoke up then.
Because insurance companies and health facilities are now less a great percentage of the American publics and employers money for health insurance they keep raising the premiums for those that have insurance so they, the companies, can keep up with their profits. Some organizations should be getting these companies now for price gauging the American Public but most attorneys would agree it is a complex situation to prove.
So together, Republican Party leadership and greedy insurance and hospital companies have violated, neglected and killed the private sector’s employee/employer relationship regarding health care with no chance of its resurrection.
Barrack Obama was right about some of us being bitter...I don’t believe that some things can ever be the same, let alone do I believe that John McCain can change health care or the economy with more of the same tax cut strategy.
Posted by ElizabethJW on April 25, 2008 at 03:45 PM
The protracted and increasingly acrimonious fight for the Democratic presidential nomination is unnerving core constituencies -- African Americans and wealthy liberals -- who are becoming convinced that the party could suffer irreversible harm if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton maintains her sharp line of attack against Sen. Barack Obama.
Posted by Free on April 26, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Every campaign has been ferocious and vicious. I like Obama's message, but it's not reality.
Hillary won her fights fair and square. She was able to reach out to certain pockets of people and he was not able to reach out to them. She won fairly. To call the Clintons racist or any other names, is just wrong.
THis is not a race issue or being unfair, this is abuot being able to reach out to your voters. Obama was not able to achieve it. People want to hear solutions. He was not able to convince them.
Why is the bar so low for Obama and so high for everyone else? Every politician has had their faces thrown in toilets. Obama gets his face thrown in the toilet and people call it racism. This is not fair.
When you're nto ready to lead and yuo face the heat, dont blame your opponent for your failures.
Take it like a man!!
Posted by Free on April 26, 2008 at 12:08 PM
when the world's vicious dictators conquer America, do you think they're going to sympathize with whiners, complaining, the treatments were unfair?
The Clintons for years, have been kicked around and demonized, but they stood tall and have always remember to serve the people. They're not perfect, but all our lives were enriched in the '90s. We touched the world with love, hope and faith. That's leadership.
Posted by Free on April 26, 2008 at 12:16 PM
HOW DO DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES OUT SHINE THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE ON THE DEFICIT SO WELL?
SOURCE: The New York Times, Sunday April 27, 2008, “Three Candidates with Three Financial Plans but One Deficit”
‘...In an interview last Sunday on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos
on ABC, Mr. McCain said he would push ahead with his tax cuts even if Congress did not approve his spending cuts’, the New York Times Staff reported. (Tell me again New York Times? John McCain ‘plans’ to be another President like Bush who doesn’t listen to Congress, Democratic or Republican, let alone the American Public?)
The article goes on to ‘reflect the ideological leanings of the candidates, with Senator McCain proposing tax cuts that go beyond President Bush’s... In 2001 and 2003, Mr. Bush pushed through Congress tax cuts totaling nearly $2 trillion.’ (Do other people realize that the $2 trillion in the current tax cuts is enough to pay for the $500 billion Iraq war four times over?)
The New York Times then quotes Senator Obama, “At a time of war and economic hardship, the last thing we need is a permanent tax cut for Americans who don’t need them and weren’t even asking for them.”
The ‘Times staff analyzes that ‘they (The Democratic Candidates) would retain those reductions (from allowing Bush’s tax cuts to expire) meant to benefit poor and “middle-class” families, which they defined as the 97 percent or so of the population that lives on less than $250,000 a year, and they would count the estimated $50 billion generated by higher taxes on the wealthy as new revenue.’
‘Regarding gas taxes, Mr. McCain has proposed a one-time “tax holiday” for the summer. (Gee, don’t you want to say thanks to all the Republican elect who haven’t thought of than before election time?) Mrs. Clinton also calls for suspending it (the federal gas tax) in a new advertisement in Indiana, while Mr. Obama says that is a “bad idea” but opposes any increase in the tax.’ (Gee people, if Hillary Clinton has the same financial idea on gas taxes if not a better idea than McCain, why ‘not’ vote for Senator Clinton?)
Thank you New York Times for the 2008 Election’s best laid out newspaper information on taxes that a reader can easily understand.
Posted by ElizabethJW on April 27, 2008 at 11:20 AM
« Hide Comments
Comments are now closed for this entry.












