Thread: Vetting Obama-Your Right To Know

Ms Julie, I submit that he has voted "along party lines" for the majority of his career and has not been present for certain critical votes. Abstain or Carelessness for all to decide.

Feel free to add to, or dispute any of these postings here with legitimate links please. In the meantime, I will continue to post what I find.

SAY ONE THING, DO ANOTHER ON TAXES:

SAYS: ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “Would you take the same pledge [that there will be no middle class tax increases of any kind]?” Obama: “Well, I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I’ve been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes.” (ABC Democrat Candidates Presidential Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 4/16/08)

* Obama: “I’ll Give A Tax Cut To Working People…” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Rally, Denver, CO, 1/30/08)

DOES: Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats’ FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85, Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

* The Democrats’ Budget Would Raise Taxes On Individuals Earning $31,850 Or More. “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.” (Andrew Taylor, “Presidential Hopefuls To Vote On Budget,” The Associated Press, 3/13/08)

SAYS: Obama: “First of all, I don’t want higher taxes, I have to pay taxes, and it’s no fun. You know I think sometimes there’s this presumption that Democrats, we just love taxing people. No, I would prefer to keep taxes as low as possible.” (ABC’s “The View,” 3/28/08)

DOES: Obama Voted At Least 94 Times For Higher Taxes In The U.S. Senate. (RNC Research)

* To Date, Obama Has Voted For A Tax Increase Approximately Once Every Five Days Congress Has Been In Session. (RNC Research; The Library Of Congress Website, thomas.loc.gov, Accessed 6/8/08)

ABC’s Terry Moran: “[O]bama was considered a reliable liberal Democratic vote in Illinois. For instance, voting for most gun control measures, opposing efforts to ban so-called partial birth abortions and supporting hundreds of tax increases.” (ABC’s “Nightline,” 2/25/08)

FLIP FLOPPING ON TRADE:

FLIP: Obama: “And on trade deals, I believe in free trade. And as somebody who lived overseas, who has family overseas, I’ve seen what’s happened in terms of rising living standards around the globe. And that’s a good thing for America, it’s good for our national security.” (CNBC’s “Your Money, Your Vote: McCain Vs. Obama,” 6/10/08)

FLIP: “In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine’s upcoming issue, the presumptive democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.” (Nina Easton, “Obama: NAFTA Not So Bad After All,” Fortune, 6/18/08)

* Obama Admitted His Primary Rhetoric Was “Overheated And Amplified.” “‘Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,’ he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA ‘devastating’ and ‘a big mistake,’ despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.” (Nina Easton, “Obama: NAFTA Not So Bad After All,” Fortune, 6/18/08)


FLOP: Obama: “But what I refuse to accept is that we have to sign trade deals like the South Korea Agreement that are bad for American workers. What I oppose - and what I have always opposed - are trade deals that put the interests of multinational corporations ahead of the interests of Americans workers - like NAFTA, and CAFTA, and permanent normal trade relations with China. And I’ll also oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement if President Bush insists on sending it to Congress…” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks To The AFL-CIO, Philadelphia, PA, 4/2/08)

FLOP: NBC’s Tim Russert: “A simple question. Will you as president say to Canada and Mexico, this [NAFTA] has not worked for us, we are out?” Obama: “I will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about, and I think actually Senator Clinton’s answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.” (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/08)

* Obama: “Well, I don’t think NAFTA has been good for America - and I never have.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Loraine, OH, 2/24/08)

“On The Record So Far, Mr. Obama Is The Most Protectionist U.S. Presidential Candidate In Decades.” (Editorial, “Change You’ll Have To Pay For,” Wall Street Journal Asia, 5/28/08)

SAY ONE THING, DO ANOTHER ON ENERGY POLICY:

SAYS: “Obama’s plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030.” (Obama For America Website, Welcome to Obama for America, Accessed 7/7/08)

DOES: “Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year’s profit levels, a campaign adviser said.” (Daniel Whitten, “Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax On Oil Company Profit,” Bloomberg News, 5/1/08)

* The Non-Partisan Congressional Research Service Found That From 1980 - 1988, The Windfall Profits Tax Reduced Domestic Oil Production And Increased Our Dependence On Foreign Oil By As Much As 13 Percent. “From 1980 to 1988, the WPT may have reduced domestic oil production anywhere from 1.2% to 8.0% (320 to 1,269 million barrels). Dependence on imported oil grew from between 3% and 13%.” (Salvatore Lazzari, “The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Of The 1980s: Implications For Current Energy Policy,” Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06)

CONFUSED ON SPENDING:

Obama: “We Account For Every Single Dollar That We Propose.” (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Myrtle Beach, SC, 1/21/08)

PolitiFact Debunks Obama’s Claims: “Until he fleshes out his economic plan considerably more, it’s disingenuous to go around claiming his proposals are ‘paid for.’ And that claim is even more suspect considering that his proposals would leave a larger deficit than would the tax laws currently on the books. We find his claim to be Barely True.” (”‘Paid For’ Without Real Money,” St. Petersburg Times’ “PolitiFact.com,” PolitiFact | A service of the St. Petersburg Times and CQ, 6/16/08)

“[Obama] has rhetorically committed to a ‘pay-as-you-go’ approach by offsetting new spending and tax cuts with new taxes or spending cuts, but his proposals do not come close to meeting this standard.” (John Maggs, “Obama On The Economy,” The National Journal, 5/31/08)

The New York Times’ David Brooks: “Both [Obama and Clinton] promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It’s impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration.” (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “No Whining About The Media,” The New York Times, 4/16/08)

Obama’s New Economic Policy Director, Jason Furman: “Obama ‘hasn’t been very specific about how he’d pay for a pretty ambitious tax plan,’ Furman said.” (Sarah Liebowitz, “Democrats’ Plans Have Sizable Costs,” Concord [NH] Monitor, 12/9/07)

* Furman said Edwards and Clinton had been more specific: “In terms of tax plans, Edwards and Clinton have ‘more clearly specified where the money’s coming from and going to.’” (Sarah Liebowitz, “Democrats’ Plans Have Sizable Costs,” Concord [NH] Monitor, 12/9/07)

Former Clinton adviser, now-Obama adviser, Gene Sperling: “For example, Clinton economic adviser Gene Sperling, in a conversation with CNNMoney.com earlier this year, took the Obama campaign to task for proposing that money saved by drawing down troops in Iraq could be used to pay for some of Obama’s proposals. That’s money that should be considered emergency spending, Sperling said. ‘When Iraq spending goes away, it goes away. You don’t use it as a pay-for,’ he said. ‘We’re assum ing that will bring the budget down.’” (Jeanne Sahadi, “Fuzzy Math On The Campaign Trail,” CNNMoney.com, 5/6/08)

* “[Sperling] says the key difference between the two candidates’ proposals is that Clinton has been more conscientious and rigorous about finding specific, realistic ways to pay for her plans. ‘There is a significant gap between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama on the fiscal responsibility of their proposals,’ says Sperling. ‘She felt very much that when you’re talking to people you need to be able to look them in the eye and tell them very specifically where’s the beef.’” (Elizabeth Auster, “Clinton, Obama Plans Are Similar,” [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, 2/24/08)

SAY ONE THING, DO ANOTHER ON BUSINESS TAX RATES:

SAID: In May 2008, regarding Corporate Tax Cuts: Obama = “And his proposals, which are essentially $300 billion worth of corporate tax cuts … I think is the exact wrong prescription for America.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 5/4/08)

DOES: “Sen. Obama’s nod to lowering corporate taxes comes as Republicans have been attacking him for proposals that would raise the cost of doing business, such as his pledge to raise the tax rate on capital gains, and his vow to increase the top income-tax rates, which are often used by small, unincorporated enterprises. He didn’t say how deeply he would cut the rate, but said it could be trimmed in return for reducing corporate tax breaks, simplifying the tax system.” (Bob Davis and Amy Chozick, “Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut In Business Tax,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/17/08)

* Obama: “If we could eliminate loopholes in taxes, create a level playing field, then I think there’s the possibility to reducing corporate rates.” (Bob Davis and Amy Chozick, “Barack Obama On Economics: ‘We’re Going Through A Big Shift,’” The Wall Street Journal, 6/16/08)

Will The Real 'Slim Shady' Stand Up? | SAVAGE POLITICS

DOES: Obama Voted At Least 94 Times For Higher Taxes In The U.S. Senate. (RNC Research)

Have there even been 94 votes on taxes in the US Senate over the past three years? I call shenanigans:

After looking at every one of the 94 votes that the RNC includes in its tally, we find:

Twenty-three were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts.
Seven of the votes were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals.
Eleven votes the GOP is counting would have increased taxes on those making more than $1 million a year – in order to fund programs such as Head Start and school nutrition programs, or veterans' health care.
The GOP sometimes counted two, three and even four votes on the same measure. We found their tally included a total of 17 votes on seven measures, effectively padding their total by 10.
The majority of the 94 votes – 53 of them, including some mentioned above – were on budget measures, not tax bills, and would not have resulted in any tax change. Four other votes were non-binding motions related to conference report negotiations.

Factcheck.org: Miscounting Obama's Tax Votes | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com

He has been fairly consistent on taxes, I think.

Dreadnought states he isn't there on critical votes, and indeed his voting record reflects this, out of 163 total votes this Congress he has been absent for 93 of them, Ouch. Barack Obama - U.S. Senator for Illinois

Twenty-three were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts.

By government standard, that's as good as a tax increase.

Allow me to explain. California's education budget was scheduled to go up x amount, something like $4 billion. There was a budget crunch (no surprise). Ahnold proposed to not increase the education budget, as well as everything else, by the amount specified earlier. The teacher's union called that a budget cut and hammered Ahnold.

I don't think we should have a double standard here. It sets a bad example. Unless you believe in double standards.

Seven of the votes were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals.

Still, an increase in taxes.

Eleven votes the GOP is counting would have increased taxes on those making more than $1 million a year – in order to fund programs such as Head Start and school nutrition programs, or veterans' health care.
The GOP sometimes counted two, three and even four votes on the same measure. We found their tally included a total of 17 votes on seven measures, effectively padding their total by 10.

Don't understand this.

The majority of the 94 votes – 53 of them, including some mentioned above – were on budget measures, not tax bills, and would not have resulted in any tax change. Four other votes were non-binding motions related to conference report negotiations.

Need more details.

At least we know one thing, Obama is NOT for cutting taxes. He would either raise taxes or be against tax cuts. If he can't get his way, he will screw the minority (the so called rich) to buy votes from the majority (the so called middle income and lower income, "working" Americans).

By government standard, that's as good as a tax increase.

Allow me to explain. California's education budget was scheduled to go up x amount, something like $4 billion. There was a budget crunch (no surprise). Ahnold proposed to not increase the education budget, as well as everything else, by the amount specified earlier. The teacher's union called that a budget cut and hammered Ahnold.

I don't think we should have a double standard here. It sets a bad example. Unless you believe in double standards.

Voting against a tax cut is not the same as voting for a tax increase. State budgets are different from the federal budget, it can be financed by debt.

Still, an increase in taxes.

Seven does not equal 94; and there are different taxes. Do people care about the corporate tax? Maybe, but probably not as much as the income tax; marginal rates would remain low in an Obama administration.

Don't understand this.

Probably amendments, or cloutre votes on certain bills that the RNC counted all together as one vote.

Need more details.

Probably apporprations bills, I will check though.

At least we know one thing, Obama is NOT for cutting taxes. He would either raise taxes or be against tax cuts. If he can't get his way, he will screw the minority (the so called rich) to buy votes from the majority (the so called middle income and lower income, "working" Americans).

Please, have you seen his tax platform; some 150 million Americans can expect a tax cut, and he is simplifing the tax code, something conservatives should be for. Marginal income rates will probably remain unchanged, even the top rate. Do you really think he is going to call for a 70% rate at the top, like it was under Carter. I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Please, have you seen his tax platform; some 150 million Americans can expect a tax cut, and he is simplifing the tax code, something conservatives should be for. Marginal income rates will probably remain unchanged, even the top rate. Do you really think he is going to call for a 70% rate at the top, like it was under Carter. I don't think so.

So how does he propose to pay for all these "programs" he wants to fund using tax money?

Perhaps you have mistaken my position. I want tax cuts for ALL Americans. Not just the lower income or middle income. I want tax cuts for the rich as well. Do you know why? Because I want to be rich one day.

Originally Posted by gunnut

So how does he propose to pay for all these "programs" he wants to fund using tax money?

Perhaps you have mistaken my position. I want tax cuts for ALL Americans. Not just the lower income or middle income. I want tax cuts for the rich as well. Do you know why? Because I want to be rich one day.

Fair enough, but I don't think Obama is going to tax the wealthy and give to the poor. Why? It isn't very smart politics.

Americans Oppose Income Redistribution to Fix Economy

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Fair enough, but I don't think Obama is going to tax the wealthy and give to the poor. Why? It isn't very smart politics.

You really believe that?

How many times has he said that he wants to give "tax breaks to 'working' Americans" and how many times has he said he wants to either let the Bush tax cuts expire or increase the rate on top income bracket?

I believe in giving tax breaks to working Americans. Except I don't think Obama's definition of "working" is the same as mine.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Fair enough, but I don't think Obama is going to tax the wealthy and give to the poor. Why? It isn't very smart politics.

Huh? He makes that promise almost every time he opens his maw.

-dale

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Fair enough, but I don't think Obama is going to tax the wealthy and give to the poor. Why? It isn't very smart politics.

Analysis: Obama won't try for McCain's budget goal
By NEDRA PICKLER – 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama says John McCain's plan to balance the budget doesn't add up. Easy for him to say: It's not a goal he's even trying to reach.

Not only does Obama say he won't eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he's not sure he'd bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans.

"I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America's families," Obama told reporters this week when asked if he'd match McCain's pledge.

So what is more important in tough economic times? For the government to spend more to help hard-hit Americans or to eliminate a deficit that can lead to higher borrowing costs and slow the economy?

Whether it's McCain the Republican or Obama the Democrat in the White House next year, the new president is likely to inherit an annual federal deficit exceeding $400 billion. Budget watchers say it's hard to figure what either candidate's impact will be since neither is offering full details of his spending programs.

"I think both candidates need to put some numbers on these things so we can get a sense of how realistic they are," said Robert Bixby of the Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog group.

Obama's criticism of McCain's pledge as "overly ambitious" is backed up by fiscal experts.

"Hypothetically it's possible to get to a balanced budget by 2013, but not under the policies that McCain has proposed," Bixby said. "The policies he would propose would actually add to the deficit when you take them all together."

Jim Horney, director of federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the center's analysis, even assuming a fast drawdown of troops in Iraq, found McCain would have to cut around $400 billion worth of federal programs to balance the budget by 2013.

"It seems unlikely, particularly given that Senator McCain has not been willing to be specific about what programs he would cut," Horney said. "And even if he were willing to, there's a real question of whether the Congress or the public would go along with the kinds of cuts required to balance the budget, assuming the tax policies that he's proposing."

McCain says he would reduce spending by slowing the growth of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, but he hasn't said how he would try to change the benefits. He also says he would slow the government's spending growth and stop spending on lawmakers' special earmarked projects. But earmarks accounted for just $17 billion of the $2.9 trillion budget this year.

Obama plans to raise $100 billion annually by increasing taxes on Americans making more than $250,000 a year, money that would be used to pay for health care and tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners. He has said ending the Iraq war would generate about $80 billion a year, but he's not using that to pay down the deficit either. Instead, he said that money could help pay for more government programs like health care, education, housing and public safety.
"The problem there is that the Democrats have been very critical of President Bush for spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the war without paying for it and running up the deficit," Bixby said. "But in effect what Obama is saying is, `I'm going to spend the same amount of money. I'm just going to spend it on something else.'"
Obama's economic policy director, Jason Furman, said the campaign will release a formal budget later in the year that explains his spending in greater detail. Furman added that "while we would like to balance the budget, we cannot say exactly when that will happen given the need to make important investments and the large amount of uncertainty in the economy."

Bixby said even if Obama and McCain have ways to pay for their spending plans, the United States still has an unsustainable budget outlook because of rising costs for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

"It's kind of like somebody building a porch on a house they can't afford," he said. "This is the part of the budget that's poised to explode over the next several years. And we really can't afford all of these new initiatives that McCain and Obama are talking about because we haven't figured out how to pay for what's already on the table."

The Associated Press: Analysis: Obama won't try for McCain's budget goal

So I did some more research on Obama and taxes. Here is the difference between McCaina and Obama:

BREAKING DOWN THE NUMBERS
Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place.

MCCAIN OBAMA

Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill

Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885

$603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974

$227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12

$161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789

$112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204

$66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290

$38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042

$19K-$38K -$113 -$892

Under $19K -$19 -$567


Source:The Tax Policy Center

How McCain and Obama will change your tax bill - Jun. 11, 2008

In McCain's tax plan, everybody gets a tax cut. In Obama's plan, everybody who makes less than 227,000 dollars a year get a tax cut, and those making less than 603,000 dollars won't see a substatinal rise in taxes. So no one making less than 603,000 will pay more than 12 dollars more in taxes. However Obama's plan calls for taxing capital and an increase in payroll taxes, not an increase in marginal income rates. With payroll taxes people will at least see some money back. His tax policy would loose over 2 trillion dollars in revenue, and he wants to balance the budget. That means he will have to cut spending programs, or privatize Social Security, and he is friendly with the Chicago Boys:

Obama's Chicago Boys

EMPOWERING WORKERS: THE PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY IN CHILE

Income Tax rates in US history:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-20080107.pdf

Capital gains rates:

The Tax Foundation - Federal Capital Gains Tax Rates, 1988-2011

So what is more important in tough economic times? For the government to spend more to help hard-hit Americans or to eliminate a deficit that can lead to higher borrowing costs and slow the economy?

The difference between the Keynesian and the supply-sider. I don't think McCain is being genious though when he states he can balance the budget by 2013. Unless he makes serious cuts in entiltements or defense spending, that is. The latter is anathema to him, the former he will never get through Congress. So we will be left with a larger deficit, higher interest rates, insolvent Social Security, which will offset any benefit from his tax cuts.

How does one propose to fix the deficit, plus undertake the said healthcare reform, plus educational reform, plus fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, increasing the size of the Navy & Marines, and Special forces by Cutting tax? How does one propose to get fun all of this whilst magically cutting tax. Which departments are going to be gutted?