jayRIngram's Blog

I just wanted something different, and Obama appeared to have that. But now his true colors have come out.

I like McCain's economic plan, but what I really like is he is more bipartisan than Obama. He is not afraid to cross party lines to get something done.

I'm voting for Obama. From the information I've gathered, he has a better economic plan than McCain.

For example:

Obama said he could “pay for every dime” of his spending and tax cut proposals “by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.” That’s wrong – his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain’s, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts.

He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of “working” families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain’s plan at 66 million and finds that Obama’s plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.

McCain has repeatedly claimed that Obama would raise tax rates for 23 million small-business owners. It's a false and preposterously inflated figure.

We find that the overwhelming majority of those small-business owners would see no increase, because they earn too little to be affected. Obama's tax proposal would raise rates only on couples making more than $250,000 or singles earning more than $200,000.

McCain argues that Obama's proposed increase is a job-killer. He has a point. It's true that increasing taxes on those at the top would leave them less money for other purposes, including investment and hiring in the case of business owners. But the number of business owners who would see their rates go up would be only a small fraction of what McCain says. Many would see their taxes go down.


The McCain campaign claims that Obama voted to raise income taxes on individuals who earn as little as $32,000 per year. That's wrong.
The resolution Obama voted for would not have increased taxes on any single taxpayer making less than $41,500 per year in total income, or any couple making less than $83,000. The $32,000 figure is approximately the taxable income of a single person making $41,500 per year, after all deductions and exclusions.
Obama's vote (for a non-binding budget bill) does not change the fact that his own tax plan would provide a tax cut of $502 for a non-married taxpayer earning $35,000.
Update, July 11: After this article was posted the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee aired a radio ad in two states repeating the bogus $32,000 fi

Hey,I live down here in Florida and about everyone I know is voting for McCain, I was a democrat for 35yrs but after hearing some of O'Bama's idea's it was not what I wanted to hear,I like McCain to because I myself was in Veitnam in 1969 USMC/RECON, I picked up 3 purple hearts,and I don't think O'bama was even in the boyscouts, Be Good!!!!

with us being at war and the economy in the shape its in..do you rely want someone whose entire political career consists of 146 days in the senate??a senate mind you that has a lower approval rating than Bush..Obama shouldn't even be a consideration. he is nothing more than a con man playing on white guilt and the black vote..both Clinton and Biden are right hes nothing more than a speech and hes not ready to lead..

donaldtrump
Sep 19, 2008 | 4:46 PM I'm voting for Obama. From the information I've gathered, he has a better economic plan than McCain.


Proof The Dali Bama is getting his advise from Franklin Raines or Jim Johnson?

" psychotic ramblings from a senile old man(Harry Reid)."

Harry is three years younger then the "old codger" that's running with "Caribou Barbie".

Continued:
sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June

Isn't funny how our economy gets blamed on the current president when it was the former president who started the ball rolling? Clinton took credit for the boom caused by Reaganomics... in fact it seems to me that he even complimented Reaganomics in many ways. Except in the ways that we are presently paying for.

But I am woefully ignorant of economy for the most part...

ArtistEd, thanks for that information. I've believed that McCain was the best choice for our country and have predicted his presidency since January of 2007 as can be seen in my blog archives.

Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson...