There is indeed, but it isn't that one of them is true and the other false: both those figures are wrong.

well I am behind as I had been away on biz for 3 days this week... check this article with some interesting tidbits....as to the past and promises and how they they vaporize......"I feel your pain"...

MAIN STREET OCTOBER 7, 2008 About That Middle-Class Tax Cut . . . Remember the last time a charismatic Democrat made such a promise?


It's like déjà vu all over again."

As John McCain heads into the second round of presidential debates tonight, Yogi Berra's words come to mind. Mr. McCain could do worse than remind the middle class what happened to them the last time a charismatic Democratic candidate promised them a tax cut. While he's at it, he might also remind them how much more expensive it will be to send Barack Obama to the White House at a time when his fellow Democrats will have a majority in both houses of Congress.

The Clinton years hold some good lessons on both these scores. Back when Mr. Clinton was campaigning for president in 1992, he made a pretty direct pitch: Raise taxes on people making more than $200,000, and use those revenues to fund tax relief for the "forgotten middle class."

In an October presidential debate, then-Gov. Clinton laid out the marginal-rate increase he wanted and some of his plans for the revenue that would be brought in. He followed with a pledge:

"Now, I'll tell you this," he said. "I will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs. If the money does not come in there to pay for these programs, we will cut other government spending, or we will slow down the phase-in of the programs."

Mr. Clinton, of course, won that election. And as the inauguration approached, he began backtracking from his promise. At a Jan. 14, 1993, press conference in New Hampshire, he claimed that it was the media that had played up a middle-class tax cut, not him. A month later, he announced his actual plan before a joint session of Congress.

On page one of the New York Times, the paper described the fate of the middle-class tax cut this way: "Families earning as little as $20,000 a year -- members of the 'forgotten middle class' whose taxes he promised during his campaign to cut -- will also be asked to send more dollars to Washington under the President's plan."

In some ways, we are today reliving the campaign of 1992. As in 1992, the Democrat is promising a middle-class tax cut. As in 1992, the Democrat is hammering the Republican as a tool of the rich. And as in 1992, the Republican doesn't seem to have an answer.

Give Sen. Obama his due. His patter is direct and easy to understand. ("I will cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95% of all workers and their families," "if you make under $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes go up one dime.") And his language about putting working families first is hard to attack as class warfare when his opponent is blaming our financial woes on Wall Street's greed.

But this doesn't have to be 1992 all over again. Not, at least, if Mr. McCain begins to direct his fire as much against the Democratic establishment on Capitol Hill as against Mr. Obama. For one thing, Congress is even less popular than the president. For another, the need for a Republican check on a Democratic Washington is a potent argument.

That was one of the lessons from the Clinton years. For the first two years of his first term -- when Democrats controlled Congress -- Mr. Clinton was a different president. With Democrats in control of Washington, the middle-class tax cut vanished, a massive tax hike was approved, and the political debate centered around HillaryCare.

Then came 1994, the "Contract with America" -- and a reform-minded Republican Congress. Robert L. Bartley, the late great editor of this newspaper, liked to note the bracing effect the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress had on the market -- and the Democratic president. After a few skirmishes, President Clinton would go on to embrace welfare reform, sign a cut in the capital gains tax, and even declare that "the era of Big Government is over."

Barring divine intervention, a President Obama would not have a Republican Congress to worry about. Instead, he would be working with a Democratic speaker of the House who loaded billions in pork onto a bill meant to fund our troops; with a Democratic Senate majority leader who promised to change the way Congress spent but fought earmark reform; and with committee leaders such as Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, who did so much to bring us the financial implosion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In this kind of Washington, the American taxpayer could use a Gary Cooper: the "High Noon" lawman willing to stand up for us when everyone else is ducking for cover. Marshal McCain, anyone?

Main Street - WSJ.com

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

When did it become "greedy" to merely wish to keep what is your's to begin with, but not those who want someone else's taken away from the person who earned it and given to them instead?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

edit.

And I totally understand how you can see it that way. But lets move on. Barack Obama can not give 95% of wage earners a tax cut, because only about 60% of wage earners pay taxes, and most of the those pay very little. For the rest he can give a tax credit. Ive already shown that the bottom 50% of wage earners pay on avg, $400 of income tax. While its politically convinient to declare you are going to give them a tax cut, it means very little. Another $50 a year means nothing.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

If only 60% of wage earners pay taxes, those in the 40% obviously will NOT receive tax breaks. It's not that he's giving 95% of wage earners a tax break, but rather he is giving 95% of tax-paying wage earners a tax break. I don't see the problem with that.

He doesnt say that. He spins it so that everyone thinks hes going to soak the rich to give everyone else a tax break. In reality hes soaking the rich to give peopel who pay almost no taxes a tax break. And he says wage earners, not tax payers.

So how exactly do you give a tax cut to someone who pays less than $500? It becomes a tax credit, or wealth redistribution. Obama is going to make it so even more people contribute nothing to pay for the 3 trillion in benefits they recieve.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

All taxes are wealth redistribution. What is your point?

And to return to your real point, most other taxes levied in the US are regressive, redistributing wealth the other direction. Shouldn't you focus equal condemnation on those wealth redistributions? Otherwise, you are effectively arguing that our government should be in the business of shifting wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.

So you support the abolition of tariffs, sales and excise taxes? I'll happily eliminate all these taxes with you! Sales/excise taxes and tariffs hurt the poor disproportionately. They are "regressive" by their very nature.

Also, remember every time the government dips into the well, they shrink the aquifer.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it."
- George Orwell

WHich taxes are those? I condemn all income taxes, btw.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Any tax except for income is regressive.

I'm not sure how we would respond to an opinion piece. Much of it is not close to factual.

__________________
I want to change the world but they won't give me the source code.

Of the top 5% whose taxes will be raised, one half are small businesses. Of the top 1% whose taxes will be raised, one third are small businesses.

The democratic party actually HELPS big business when they do something like this because it makes it that much harder for small business to compete, and hire more workers and raise wages.

How can it be that so many people don't understand basic economics?

__________________
Obama Low Effort Wealth Spread. I can't believe it's not earned!

Supply-side economics also imply that demand would go up and labor costs go down as you shift the tax burden. Some of those help small businesses.

If a small business earns 605,000, then Obama would tax them an extra 115,000. That's close to an EXTRA 20%. Are you telling me that giving a small tax break to the middle class, or a $1000 (let me buy your vote) stimulus check would cover that 20% loss? Or do you think it would most likely end up in a lost job?

__________________
Obama Low Effort Wealth Spread. I can't believe it's not earned!