The Iraq war looms as, perhaps, the most important foreign policy issue during the 2008 election. With thousands of U.S. troops stationed there and sectarian violence always threatening to engulf the country, candidates will have to grapple with the day-to-day events taking place more than 6,000 miles away.
DEMOCRATS
Hillary ClintonVoted for use of military force in Iraq, but now says she would have voted differently "if we knew then what we know now." Supports de-authorizing the war. Voted for war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Opposed Bush plan to increase the number of American troops in Iraq. Supports a phased redeployment Watch Clinton speak about Iraq
Mike GravelOpposed use of military force in Iraq, saying invasion was against U.S. interests. Opposed Bush plan to send additional American troops to Iraq. Supports immediate troop withdrawal. Says "aggressive" and "skilled" diplomacy needed to end sectarian violence. Says non-binding congressional resolutions are ineffective and that Congress should instead demand an end to the war.
Barack ObamaOpposed use of military force in Iraq. Voted for war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Supports phased redeployment of U.S. troops. Opposed Bush's plan to send additional troops to Iraq. Had once called for troop withdrawal to begin by the end of 2006. Watch Obama speak about Iraq
OUT OF THE RACE: Joe Biden Chris Dodd John Edwards Dennis Kucinich Bill Richardson
REPUBLICANS
Mike HuckabeeHas offered qualified support for Bush Iraq policy, saying the president has access to military and diplomatic information that is not publicly available. Opposes congressional resolutions that express opposition to the president's plan to increase the number of American troops in Iraq. Opposes proposals to cut funding to the war. Watch Huckabee speak about Iraq
John McCainVoted for use of military force in Iraq. Supported Bush veto of war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Was an early proponent of sending additional American troops to Iraq. Watch McCain speak about Iraq
Ron PaulVoted against use of military force in Iraq. Supports withdrawing troops from Iraq, but opposed war spending bill which included a plan to withdraw most U.S. troops by March 2008. Calls for repealing authority given to the president in 2002 Iraq war authorization vote. Opposed Bush plan to increase the number of American troops in Iraq. Says military victory in Iraq is "unattainable." Watch Paul speak about Iraq
Showing posts with label Independent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Independent. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
4 candidates, your paycheck
How the leading Democratic and Republican presidential candidates' tax proposals could affect your take-home pay.
Regardless of how much money you make, you have skin in this game. The four leading presidential candidates say they're concerned about the taxes that Americans pay out of their paychecks. And they all vow to do something about it if elected.
Now with the economy at the forefront of the presidential campaign, the leading candidates' tax proposals will come under increasing scrutiny in the coming weeks.
Here's a look at some of the ways that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain and Mitt Romney would realign tax policies and how those changes could affect your take-home pay.
Keeping the tax cuts in place
One of the central questions is what to do about a series of tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 set to expire in three years.
The four candidates seem to agree on one thing: They want to preserve the cuts for low- and middle-income earners. Those tax cuts include lower rates, reduced taxes paid by married couples and a higher standard deduction.
But the Democratic and Republican candidates part company when it comes to upper-income earners.
Both McCain and Romney have said they would preserve the tax cuts for high-income earners - typically defined as households that make $250,000 or more. Clinton and Obama want to repeal them for taxpayers in that group.
Clinton also would reduce the value of some personal exemptions and itemized deductions for big earners.
Part of the rationale given for restoring higher taxes on upper-income households is that they benefited the most from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and that continuation of the tax cuts for those at the top of the heap may force the government to raise taxes on everyone else or cut spending.
Those who oppose taxing the rich more note that the top 1% - taxpayers making more than $250,000 - already account for 40% of all federal income tax revenue. Taxing them more, proponents of extending the tax cuts say, may lower tax receipts because high-income filers will seek more ways to shelter their money from taxes.
New tax breaks
The candidates also have somewhat different ideas about what kind of new income tax breaks to offer.
On the Republican side, Romney has said he wants to permanently lower the rate on the lowest tax bracket to 7.5% from 10%. Currently that tax bracket applies to roughly the first $8,000 for single filers and the first $16,000 for married couples filing jointly.
And he has proposed permanently exempting workers over 65 from having to pay payroll taxes, which are used to fund Social Security.
McCain hasn't yet offered up any individual income tax breaks beyond proposing to make the 2001 and 2003 breaks permanent.
On the Democratic side, Obama would offer a tax break to seniors by eliminating their income taxes if they make less than $50,000.
Obama also would create a credit worth up to $500 per working person ($1,000 per family) to offset Social Security tax on the first $8,100 of earnings. The credit would start to phase out for people with incomes between $150,000 and $200,000.
Both he and Clinton have said they want to expand the earned income tax credit for low-income workers. And they want to offer an expanded saver's tax credit although in somewhat different ways.
Clinton would offer a savers' credit equal to 100% on the first $1,000 saved by married couples making less than $60,000, and a 50% matching credit for couples making between $60,000 and $100,000.
Obama would match 50 percent of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000.
New retirement tax bites
The candidates' tax proposals aren't all sugar. There are notable differences, for instance, in how they might treat payroll taxes in a bid to shore up Social Security over the long haul.
Obama would consider increasing the amount of wages subject to the payroll tax. Currently, the first $102,000 of wage income is subject to the 12.4% tax, half of which is paid by workers and half by their employers.
Obama has indicated he might favor lifting that cap but only after imposing a "donut." A donut would protect from the payroll tax a certain portion of wages above the current cap - for instance, wages between $102,000 and $202,000. But any earnings above that ceiling would be taxed.
It's not clear yet whether a payroll tax increase would be in the offing under Clinton or McCain, because both candidates have been spare on details.
Clinton has said she doesn't want to eliminate the cap on the income subject to the Social Security tax. But that doesn't necessarily rule out an increase in that cap or a higher tax rate.
McCain, meanwhile, has said he would prefer Social Security funding to be shored up by reducing growth in benefits rather than by raising the payroll tax.
Romney doesn't want to raise payroll taxes, but instead favors the idea of letting workers have individual investment accounts and fund them with money from the surplus paid into the system.
Clinton and Obama oppose the notion of diverting payroll taxes - whether from the system's surplus or direct from your paycheck - to fund accounts.
Don't rearrange your budget yet
Of course, campaign promises are often easier to make than they are to keep. A lot can come between a newly elected president and his or her ideas about taxes.
Political reality, for one. Just look at President Bush and Congress. Their inability to come to agreement has stymied decisions.
Then there's deficit reality. The budget that Bush submitted Monday projects a deficit of more than $400 billion. That could tie the hands of the next president to make tax changes.
Or consider the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Everyone in Washington says they want to do something about the outmoded tax scheme, which was originally aimed at the rich but is increasingly hitting the middle class. But no one has an appealing way to pay for fixing it. The price tag for reform or repeal ranges between $500 billion and $1 trillion over 10 years.
"No one has really staked out a credible claim at fiscal responsibility," said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center. "They'd just devote deficits to different purposes."
Regardless of how much money you make, you have skin in this game. The four leading presidential candidates say they're concerned about the taxes that Americans pay out of their paychecks. And they all vow to do something about it if elected.
Now with the economy at the forefront of the presidential campaign, the leading candidates' tax proposals will come under increasing scrutiny in the coming weeks.
Here's a look at some of the ways that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain and Mitt Romney would realign tax policies and how those changes could affect your take-home pay.
Keeping the tax cuts in place
One of the central questions is what to do about a series of tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 set to expire in three years.
The four candidates seem to agree on one thing: They want to preserve the cuts for low- and middle-income earners. Those tax cuts include lower rates, reduced taxes paid by married couples and a higher standard deduction.
But the Democratic and Republican candidates part company when it comes to upper-income earners.
Both McCain and Romney have said they would preserve the tax cuts for high-income earners - typically defined as households that make $250,000 or more. Clinton and Obama want to repeal them for taxpayers in that group.
Clinton also would reduce the value of some personal exemptions and itemized deductions for big earners.
Part of the rationale given for restoring higher taxes on upper-income households is that they benefited the most from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and that continuation of the tax cuts for those at the top of the heap may force the government to raise taxes on everyone else or cut spending.
Those who oppose taxing the rich more note that the top 1% - taxpayers making more than $250,000 - already account for 40% of all federal income tax revenue. Taxing them more, proponents of extending the tax cuts say, may lower tax receipts because high-income filers will seek more ways to shelter their money from taxes.
New tax breaks
The candidates also have somewhat different ideas about what kind of new income tax breaks to offer.
On the Republican side, Romney has said he wants to permanently lower the rate on the lowest tax bracket to 7.5% from 10%. Currently that tax bracket applies to roughly the first $8,000 for single filers and the first $16,000 for married couples filing jointly.
And he has proposed permanently exempting workers over 65 from having to pay payroll taxes, which are used to fund Social Security.
McCain hasn't yet offered up any individual income tax breaks beyond proposing to make the 2001 and 2003 breaks permanent.
On the Democratic side, Obama would offer a tax break to seniors by eliminating their income taxes if they make less than $50,000.
Obama also would create a credit worth up to $500 per working person ($1,000 per family) to offset Social Security tax on the first $8,100 of earnings. The credit would start to phase out for people with incomes between $150,000 and $200,000.
Both he and Clinton have said they want to expand the earned income tax credit for low-income workers. And they want to offer an expanded saver's tax credit although in somewhat different ways.
Clinton would offer a savers' credit equal to 100% on the first $1,000 saved by married couples making less than $60,000, and a 50% matching credit for couples making between $60,000 and $100,000.
Obama would match 50 percent of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000.
New retirement tax bites
The candidates' tax proposals aren't all sugar. There are notable differences, for instance, in how they might treat payroll taxes in a bid to shore up Social Security over the long haul.
Obama would consider increasing the amount of wages subject to the payroll tax. Currently, the first $102,000 of wage income is subject to the 12.4% tax, half of which is paid by workers and half by their employers.
Obama has indicated he might favor lifting that cap but only after imposing a "donut." A donut would protect from the payroll tax a certain portion of wages above the current cap - for instance, wages between $102,000 and $202,000. But any earnings above that ceiling would be taxed.
It's not clear yet whether a payroll tax increase would be in the offing under Clinton or McCain, because both candidates have been spare on details.
Clinton has said she doesn't want to eliminate the cap on the income subject to the Social Security tax. But that doesn't necessarily rule out an increase in that cap or a higher tax rate.
McCain, meanwhile, has said he would prefer Social Security funding to be shored up by reducing growth in benefits rather than by raising the payroll tax.
Romney doesn't want to raise payroll taxes, but instead favors the idea of letting workers have individual investment accounts and fund them with money from the surplus paid into the system.
Clinton and Obama oppose the notion of diverting payroll taxes - whether from the system's surplus or direct from your paycheck - to fund accounts.
Don't rearrange your budget yet
Of course, campaign promises are often easier to make than they are to keep. A lot can come between a newly elected president and his or her ideas about taxes.
Political reality, for one. Just look at President Bush and Congress. Their inability to come to agreement has stymied decisions.
Then there's deficit reality. The budget that Bush submitted Monday projects a deficit of more than $400 billion. That could tie the hands of the next president to make tax changes.
Or consider the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Everyone in Washington says they want to do something about the outmoded tax scheme, which was originally aimed at the rich but is increasingly hitting the middle class. But no one has an appealing way to pay for fixing it. The price tag for reform or repeal ranges between $500 billion and $1 trillion over 10 years.
"No one has really staked out a credible claim at fiscal responsibility," said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center. "They'd just devote deficits to different purposes."
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Mud was flung tonight! - The Dems in Myrtle Beach
Barack just called the Clintons liars. Both Bill and Hillary.
Hill strikes back, calls him a waffler, cites his “Republican ideas” remark.
Mud is flung. Barack just said Hill was a corporate lawyer for Wal-Mart when he (Obama) was out fighting for jobs.
Chaos ensues. One thing is clear. Wolf Blitzer is a lousy moderator. It’s only 8:28 and he’s already lost control!
Hill just pulled a Chicago slum landlord out of her bag. Says Barack repped him as a lawyer when she was out fighting for the little guy.
Johnny E reminds all that there are three people in the debate. He asks how “this kind of squabbling” will help anyone. He says it’s not about “us,” it’s about helping Americans.
“Lord knows, you have let them go on forever,” he declares when Blitzer tries to rein him in.
The audience loves it. Look for Edwards to surprise Saturday, with a good 20 to 29%. You heard it here first.
He says the subprime mortgage mess is more likely to affect African Americans. He’s talking about poverty in a state where there are more have-nots than haves.
Half of South Carolina’s Democratic voters are black. Edwards is not pandering to them. He is continuing a focus (on poverty and deprivation) that he’s had for years.
As Hillary and Barack throw mud balls at one another. Edwards stands in a clean suit. That could translate into votes on Saturday.
Hill attacks Obama for his voting record in Illinois, saying she just can’t get a straight answer out of him. She is booed. This has turned into a two-ring circus.
As Obama retorts, Hillary takes measured breaths, her hands folded, her half-smile pasted firmly. You just know she has another cherry bomb up her grey flannel sleeve. But Blitzer changes the topic to health care and things calm a bit.
Health care: Barack calls Hillary a liar again.
The stage changes so that the candidates sit in chairs next to one another instead of standing behind podia.
This is somewhat silly, CNN.
Best question, to Barack Obama: Do you think Bill Clinton was our first black president?
He did not answer yes or no. He played Dodge Bull (sic) very skillfully. He made humor: He’d have “to
investigate Bill’s dancing ability… before (he) could actually judge whether he is a brother.”
Great play.
Edwards says he thinks McCain will be the Republican nominee and that because he is free of special interest debt he can beat him “anywhere in America.”
Hill strikes back, calls him a waffler, cites his “Republican ideas” remark.
Mud is flung. Barack just said Hill was a corporate lawyer for Wal-Mart when he (Obama) was out fighting for jobs.
Chaos ensues. One thing is clear. Wolf Blitzer is a lousy moderator. It’s only 8:28 and he’s already lost control!
Hill just pulled a Chicago slum landlord out of her bag. Says Barack repped him as a lawyer when she was out fighting for the little guy.
Johnny E reminds all that there are three people in the debate. He asks how “this kind of squabbling” will help anyone. He says it’s not about “us,” it’s about helping Americans.
“Lord knows, you have let them go on forever,” he declares when Blitzer tries to rein him in.
The audience loves it. Look for Edwards to surprise Saturday, with a good 20 to 29%. You heard it here first.
He says the subprime mortgage mess is more likely to affect African Americans. He’s talking about poverty in a state where there are more have-nots than haves.
Half of South Carolina’s Democratic voters are black. Edwards is not pandering to them. He is continuing a focus (on poverty and deprivation) that he’s had for years.
As Hillary and Barack throw mud balls at one another. Edwards stands in a clean suit. That could translate into votes on Saturday.
Hill attacks Obama for his voting record in Illinois, saying she just can’t get a straight answer out of him. She is booed. This has turned into a two-ring circus.
As Obama retorts, Hillary takes measured breaths, her hands folded, her half-smile pasted firmly. You just know she has another cherry bomb up her grey flannel sleeve. But Blitzer changes the topic to health care and things calm a bit.
Health care: Barack calls Hillary a liar again.
The stage changes so that the candidates sit in chairs next to one another instead of standing behind podia.
This is somewhat silly, CNN.
Best question, to Barack Obama: Do you think Bill Clinton was our first black president?
He did not answer yes or no. He played Dodge Bull (sic) very skillfully. He made humor: He’d have “to
investigate Bill’s dancing ability… before (he) could actually judge whether he is a brother.”
Great play.
Edwards says he thinks McCain will be the Republican nominee and that because he is free of special interest debt he can beat him “anywhere in America.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)