Question for McCain supporters...

I've been hearing a lot lately about Obama being a socialist, people site Obama's plans for refundable tax credits for poor people (refundable tax credits mean you can a tax refund larger than the amount you pay in taxes) and quote him saying he wants to 'spread the wealth around'.

My question is why are Obama's refundable tax credits socialistic, but the refundable tax credits McCain has proposed are a reform? and why don't you accuse Sarah Palin of being a socialist after she added windfall taxes to oil companies in Alaska and then redistributed the tax money to the people of Alaska? Does it only count as socialism if you propose 'spreading the wealth around' but not if you actually do spread it around?

Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answers?

It's a party meme, like McCain is the same as GWB memes.

They're meant for the base, so that the base doesn't have to think.

Since Obamas tax increase for the richest would return them from Bush's taxcut to the Clinton level of tax range, guess that makes Clinton a socialist too. 

Granted "Spread the wealth around" was a poor and misrepresentative choice of words - no wonder the GOP has pounced on it.  Claiming it means the middle class, who get bigger taxcuts under Obama than McCain, would be losing their 'wealth' is sticking with those who accept McCain at his word and not what analysis of both plans has proven.  Since his campaigning claims otherwise, this should have been posed to McCain in one of the debates.

Original Post by hkellick:

Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answers?

 I don't know the answer, to me McCains refundable tax credits sound just like the Obama refundable tax credits McCain has called socialism, maybe you could enlighten me...

asked and answered in #2

Original Post by ignayshus:

It's a party meme, like McCain is the same as GWB memes.

They're meant for the base, so that the base doesn't have to think.

 he may not be exactly the same, Ig but he's more like GWB than Obama is ;D

A meme is a meme kg, it's purpose is the same: to perpetuate itself.

It's anti-intellectual and it pains me to know that people actually buy into that crap... people with the authority to vote... regardless of their capacity.

I don't think McCain is the same as GWB, but you have to agree that they DO agree on many things, Iggy, including the concept that giving more tax breaks to the rich and corporations will help this economy when there's been no proof, in 30 years, that this has ever been true.

Do you disagree with this assesment?

I agree that's what he had to tell his base this election cycle to get them to the polls.

Original Post by ignayshus:

I agree that's what he had to tell his base this election cycle to get them to the polls.

So then you agree that during the campaign McCain touted ideas and suggestions that the current administration has used, ineffectively.

I really like this organization

Government is Good

Here's what they say about tax cuts

Government as a Beast that Must Be Starved

One of the most important strategies to drastically shrink government is hiding in plain sight. People see this policy, but often do not see it for what it really is. That policy is massive tax cuts. Over the first four years of the Bush administration, Congress passed significant tax cuts three times. These cuts will eliminate $928,000,000,000 from the federal budget by 2010. As a result of these cuts, federal tax revenues were lower in 2005, as a share of the economy, than any year since the 1960s.1 And yet the administration has pledged to cut taxes even more. In its 2006 budget proposal, for example, it proposed tax cuts that when combined with cuts already enacted would cost the federal government $2,450,000,000,000 by the year 2015 – a truly stunning figure.2

Conservatives like to portray these cuts as tax relief for the masses, or as a boost to economic growth. Critics, in turn, pan them as a giveaway to the rich, and claim they do little to stimulate the economy. But what this public debate ignores is the deeper political motive underlying these tax cuts – a motive that has received little public attention. For many years, anti-government activists have discussed in private the main reason for cutting taxes: it is the best way to shrink government. This is a tactic that conservative ideologues call "starving the beast." The “beast” of course is government, and taxes are what nourish and sustain this institution. Grover Norquist is very clear about the basic purpose of tax cuts: "The goal is reducing the size and scope of government by draining its lifeblood."3

The logic is simple: if taxes are drastically reduced, then eventually government itself must also be drastically reduced. Taxes will be slashed until the government has no choice but to cut back on most of its social welfare and regulatory programs. Milton Friedman, the arch-conservative economist, speaking of ways to limit or reduce the size of government, explained it this way: “…how can we ever cut government down to size? I believe there is only one way: the way parents control spendthrift children, cutting their allowance. For the government, that means cutting taxes. Resulting deficits will be an effective – I would go as far as to say, the only effective – restraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature.”4

But this is not how tax cuts are sold to the masses. They are not told that one of the main purposes is to starve the funding for social and regulatory programs. Anti-government conservatives do not explain which programs will have to be cut if these tax reductions take place. The reason of course is that, as another article on this site documents, most Americans do not want cuts in programs in the areas of education, retirement, environmental protection, health, etc. Most want more spending in these areas, not less. So this starving the beast strategy is rarely discussed publicly – and it is one of the most important “stealth” strategies being pursued by anti-government activists. They hope that this approach will fly below the political radar and allow them to achieve reductions in major government programs – whether the American people like it or not.

This strategy was first tried in the Reagan administration. He came into office in 1980 promising to balance the federal budget. But he quickly cut taxes and raised military spending, creating huge budget deficits. This made little sense to many people at the time and was not understood until Reagan’s budget advisor, David Stockman, later revealed that this was a conscious effort to “starve the beast” – a phrase he is reputed to have coined.5 The idea was to put increasing financial pressure on social programs in order to make it easier to cut them. And indeed, it had some effect, with domestic discretionary spending, falling from 4.5% of the economy in 1981 to 3.3% in 1988.6 The huge and ongoing tax cuts of the George W. Bush administration revived this strategy and implemented it in a much more extensive way. As economist Paul Krugman has observed, “‘starving the beast’ is no longer a hypothetical scenario. It’s happening as we speak. For decades, conservatives have sought tax cuts, not because they’re affordable, but because they aren’t.”

Original Post by ignayshus:

A meme is a meme kg, it's purpose is the same: to perpetuate itself.

It's anti-intellectual and it pains me to know that people actually buy into that crap... people with the authority to vote... regardless of their capacity.

 see this living in the center is great, but it lacks passion.

How about: I have made my intellectual decision and charisma (and God-forbid proper pronunciation) is just the icing on the cake?

I was like you in the last three elections. I tried to look at the overall and Bush was the right choice over Gore. What I didn't account for was the possibility that there could be someone like Cheney on the planet.

Sometimes you have to take your **** out and vote your conscience, your morals, you know?

Original Post by hkellick:

Original Post by ignayshus:

I agree that's what he had to tell his base this election cycle to get them to the polls.

So then you agree that during the campaign McCain touted ideas and suggestions that the current administration has used, ineffectively.

Indeed. I also agree that Obama is touting ideas and suggestion ineffectively used by the current administration as well.

edit: and to be clear, I don't think (at least I hope not) that either would follow through.

Original Post by kathygator:

 see this living in the center is great, but it lacks passion.

How about: I have made my intellectual decision and charisma (and God-forbid proper pronunciation) is just the icing on the cake?

I was like you in the last three elections. I tried to look at the overall and Bush was the right choice over Gore. What I didn't account for was the possibility that there could be someone like Cheney on the planet.

Sometimes you have to take your **** out and vote your conscience, your morals, you know?

I prefer that my political decisions give me indigestian, leave me without allies and force me to acknowledge the good and the bad.

It tells me I'm earning it ;)

Don't worry-  if that truly is the criteria, I'm earning it. I have very few allies IRL in my position.

My biggest fear in voting for Obama was that I might be missing something that all these naysayers are seeing. I read everything I could. I tried to listen to both with an open mind. But I still could see no area where he was as liberal or McCain was as conservative as people said. They both seemed very similar to me.

Then all I had left was waiting for one of them to screw up. McCain did that to my satisfaction in his selection of Palin and then his reversal of his position on abortion, solely to court the right.

On Palin we agree...

(I wouldn't be suprised if John agrees as well)

Original Post by kathygator:

McCain did that to my satisfaction in his selection of Palin and then his reversal of his position on abortion, solely to court the right.

 I find it interesting the number of people I find who hold this position, even people who have always been solidly Republican. 

My father in law, a dedicated self-described Reagan Republican, for the first time in his life will be voting Democratic because of McCain's VP pick.  Being in family that's full of blatant racists, it's a huge switchover for him - Thanksgiving may be very interesting this year if we're not fortunate enough to avoid the topic.  He's still waiting for Obama to screw up, but like a lot of people, he's voting for what he sees as the lesser of two evils.

Original Post by kathygator:

McCain did that to my satisfaction in his selection of Palin and then his reversal of his position on abortion, solely to court the right.

..... agree with you here.  At least she's in "excellent health"

If McCain wins lets just all pray that he doesn't turn the office over to Palin for any reason. The more I hear and see, the more I realize that Palin was likely chosen for "marketing" and "PR" reasons and NOT because she is in any remote way qualified to be our VP [edited to update opinion]

Lets not forget in all this that "middle class/income" stops at $57,000 HOUSEHOLD INCOME.  (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Savingan dDebt/LearnToBudget/TheSecretToSuccessInTheMi ddleClass.aspx) and that people sub-middle class (under $36,000) pay very little in tax anyway.

 So, if you are making over $91,705 COMBINED household income, you are considered "upper class" (not even upper-middle) and would benefit more form McCain's plan--because you EARN more and are already taxed at a higher percentage than the other brackets.  The McCain personal tax incentives are not to benefit the wealthy---they are to make the taxation more fair across the board.  Why is it that my family should return 28%-35% of my income when we have worked to have a job that pays those kind of salaries when there are people, 15% and 25% to get the same service out of the government?  It is because of the socialist ideals that I should subsidize people who can't pay as much.  I do understand that $36,000 is not enough for a person to live on if they lost 35% of their salary to taxes, but dang it, why should I lose a larger percentage of my income just because my job pays more.  Tax me at the same rate and you will still get more money out of me than some one making 1/2 of what I do.

<steps off of his soap box>

Original Post by deaglesfan:

 So, if you are making over $91,705 COMBINED household income, you are considered "upper class" (not even upper-middle) and would benefit more form McCain's plan--because you EARN more and are already taxed at a higher percentage than the other brackets. 

Do you have a source that says you'd be better off under the McCain plan if you made $91,705 combined? I plugged that into this tax calculator and amount paid in taxes for a married couple filing jointly and making $91,705 a year would be lower under the Obama plan for each of the next 4 years.