McCain is odd man out as debate on war in Iraq dramatically shifts to Obama’s favor
July 21st, 2008 at 08:10am Pat Cunningham
As the Bush administration relents on a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and as Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki expresses favor for Barack Obama’s plan for withdrawal, John McCain FINDS HIMSELF in a box.
POSTSCRIPT: Efforts to cast al-Maliki’s embrace of Obama’s plan as misunderstood or mistranslated have pretty much COME TO NAUGHT.
Entry Filed under: Nouri al-Maliki, Bush administration, War in Iraq, John McCain, Barack Obama
16 Comments Add your own
1. Menlo Bob | July 21st, 2008 at 9:03 am
Obama’s plan was leaving Iraq in 16 months no matter what…a plan that was hatched back when Barack spoke of the surge as a failure. McCains plan is to leave when conditions permit–which is why “Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.”
2. Mike Carroll | July 21st, 2008 at 10:39 am
Thread hijack alert.
Since Patrick is out cruising his favorite looney left websites, it is left to me to post the tax news of the day which I’m sure has simply escaped his notice.
The latest IRS data has just been published regarding who paid what in income taxes in 2006, and guess what, just as predicted by the Bush Administration the rich got soaked. The top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. The top 50% paid 97.1% leaving half of the workforce with a 2.9% “burden”.
From the WSJ commentary linked below-”This is precisely what supply-siders predicted would happen with lower tax rates on capital gains, dividends and income. The economy and earnings would grow faster, which they did; investors would declare more capital gains and companies would pay out more dividends, which they did; the rich would invest less in tax shelters at lower tax rates, so their tax payments would rise, which did happen.
The idea that this has been a giveaway to the rich is a figment of the left’s imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006 from $136 billion in 2003. No President has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
Since Obama is now belatedly getting a foreign policy education, perhaps he should add economics to his curriculum. I hear Phil Gramm has time available.
3. Echo4Charlie | July 21st, 2008 at 11:32 am
I agree with John McCain and Menlo Bob. We withdraw when conditions permit. If we remove our military presence before the new democratic Iraqi government and security forces are (without any doubt) ready, it would be bad for everyone. They’d be overrun (in short order) by Iran.
Senator Obama giving a drop dead deadline only sounds good to voters and taxpayers on paper.
It’s going to be a heck of a lot more expensive to redeploy into Iraq, than to stay the course with our troop surge until we are confident that they can stand in their “neighborhood” without our “intervention” (doing all of the work for them).
I do question, though, from a humanitarian perspective, why we have not made a presence in Darfur (I know why, as they have absolutely no resources that the US needs). That is a scenario in which we should intercede, as was Rwanda (another scenario where they had absolutely no resources that we needed).
Although I’ve developed skepticism with respect to whether or not attacking Iraq was the right choice (considering the majority of our 911 attackers were Saudi), we’re there. We broke it, so, as always in that scenario, we bought it. We’ve made a commitment to rebuild Iraq, and we’re doing that.
What’s the other option? Leave too soon, let Iraq spiral into oblivion, and allow mass Iraqi immigration amnesty as they flood across our borders in droves?
4. Pat Cunningham | July 21st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Michael: Let me know when the Wall Street Journal comes up with figures showing whether middle-income folks are paying higher or lower percentages of their incomes in federal taxes under Bush, and whether rich folks are paying higher or lower percentages of their incomes. I eagerly await those numbers. And I expect that I’ll hear a lot of crickets chirping for a long time before such figures are forthcoming. Meanwhile, I’ll be looking for the correct figures myself.
5. Mike Carroll | July 21st, 2008 at 1:41 pm
You can stop listening for the crickets Pat, that answer is obvious. The 2003 tax cuts reduced the tax rate for all taxpayers and thus middle income folks are obviously paying a lower percentage of their income in federal taxes as are the rich. The rich are paying more in taxes because they made more money with a growing economy and had less reason to put that money in tax shelters with the lower tax rate.
If Obama is elected and if he raises the tax rate on the “rich”, they will react like rational people and find ways to reduce their taxable income and that will in turn reduce tax receipts which is what you big government types should be trying to avoid I would think.
Its time to wave the white flag, the numbers are in.
6. Pat Cunningham | July 21st, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Mike: You haven’t answered the questions: Are the rich paying higher or lower percentages of their incomes in taxes? Are middle-income folks paying higher or lower percentages of their incomes?
7. Mike Carroll | July 21st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Lower and Lower.I thought that was obvious from my answer.
8. Craig Knauss | July 21st, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Mike gets wrapped up in his statistics. But they don’t tell everything. For example, he says, “The top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006….” But Pat’s question was regarding income tax as a percentage of individual incomes, not the aggregate collected. I remember way back when I had a government finance class, the Brookings Institute stated something like the top 10% of the income earners made something like 90% of the aggregate income. But the middle 50% paid about 85% of all income taxes. Of course, that was years ago. But keep in mind, that there are people out there who make hundreds of millions of dollars, or more, each year. One bigwig, making $200M per year, makes as much as 6,700 workers getting $30,000 each. But those 6,700 workers pay more total tax. Howard Hughes used to make as much in a year as about 20,000 of his employees, but had more of it sheltered, etc., than they did. And there is a good percentage of the population that doesn’t pay any taxes, because they don’t make enough to live on. I’ll worry about the abused top 1% when I get there. But it won’t be for quite a while.
9. Pat Cunningham | July 21st, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Mike: Your numbers (or the WSJ’s numbers) don’t say what you say they say. You’ve got numbers for, respectively, the top 1 percent, the top 10 percent and the top 50 percent, the latter of which covers just about all payers of income taxes. But there’s a big gap between 10 percent and 50 percent. None of your numbers tell me whether middle-income folks are paying bigger percentages of their incomes in taxes since the Bush cuts were enacted. Everything I’ve seen so far suggests that they are. Nor can you show me numbers that dispute the incontrovertible fact that rich folks are paying smaller percentages of their incomes in taxes in the wake of the Bush cuts. Another question the WSJ article doesn’t answer: Are total tax revenues up or down since the Bush cuts. I suspect that they’re down, which means the cuts have contributed to growth in federal deficits. Here’s some stuff for you to ponder, stuff you won’t see in Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal (a sister medium of Fox News, by the way):
http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm
10. Mike Carroll | July 21st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Pat-I’m going to try this one more time assuming that we are debating in good faith.
The 2003 tax cuts were across the board. All income levels, ergo, lower percentages for your middle class. What is a middle class income by the way. I’m curious as to how you define it.
Yes-rich folks pay a smaller percentage of their income with the tax cuts. I never said otherwise.However, they are paying more actual dollars in taxes. It is actually quite simple. 20% of 2 dollars is more that 30% of 1 dollar. If the economy grows and incomes increase with low tax rates ( and the rich no longer have reason to limit their income or tax shelter it) revenues increase.BTW, the last I checked tax revenues have exploded in the last few years. Revenues aren’t the issue with the deficit, out of control spending is the issue.
Hell Pat, even the Europeans have started to figure this out.
They are cutting business and personal tax rates to spur economic growth. See Ireland.
11. Mike Carroll | July 21st, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Craig-not really sure what you are saying but I don’t worry about the top 1% either. I worry about an economic philosophy (Obama’s) that thinks that you can raise tax rates and not impact the economy. You will slow the economy and its the middle class that will suffer with job losses when you do. The 1% will be just fine.
12. Optimistic1 | July 21st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Pat - All Bush numbers aside, so the accepted premise on your side is the wealthy deserve to be taxed more and it is justified? Why is this? Leave the SUPER wealthy out of it, a guy making $170k a year pays 30% more tax from a PERCENTAGE STANDPOINT than than a guy making $70k a year. For doing what? Working hard (Or Not) and achieving more success financially than the guy making $70k and he is penalized for it? I don’t understand the rationale that because one makes more money, one owes a higher percentage to the government.
A gay couple is not allowed the same tax breaks as a married couple, front page story historically. I feel this is a disservice and needs to be corrected, but why is it any different than a 3 million dollar estate being charged a tax of 1 million dollars AFTER already being taxed at a higher percentage while earned than the gay couple noted above? It should work both ways, but the wealthy are one minority which you seem to have no problem penalizing for doing NOTHING more than having money. Why is it justified to discriminate against someone with money for no other reason when you are such a strong advocate for others being discriminated against on false grounds like race or sexual preference? Should we start taxing social security benefits if you own a home simply because you have been successful enough to be a homeowner? How about if you were ever able to afford owning a pet? Ever successful enough to have belonged to the YMCA? All the same principle on a smaller scale of course, but it makes my point. All of the above are unjustified in my opinion.
13. Pat Cunningham | July 21st, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Mike: Obama knows enough about the economy that he’s been endorsed by Warren Buffett, former Fed chief Paul Volcker and former Securities and Exchange Commission chairmen William Donaldson, Arthur Levitt and David Ruder. Meanwhile, McCain had to throw his chief economic adviser under the bus.
14. Mike Carroll | July 21st, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Pat-so when the debate is lost you bring up a few endorsements?BTW-Warren Buffett is a great investor. That doesn’t mean he is a great economist.
15. Mike Carroll | July 21st, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Optimistic1-you tax rich people more because they normally vote Republican and are therefore evil unless they are Warren Buffett then you make sure that they know that their tax shelters will still be in place once you are elected.
16. Echo4Charlie | July 22nd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Warren Buffett obviously sees personal financial gain from Senator Obama’s plan. That’s why the “endorsement”. That doesn’t apply to the blue collar-through middle management contingent in the US.
One thing that government and congress (in particular) need to do is review and relate different grants (for continuing education) to today’s economy, and income. Minimum wage goes up, but I’ve seen no qualifier as in availability of grants for those who would like to go back to college to start toward, or finish, their degrees, so that they can increase their earning potential.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed