The thing that Obama said last night that probably upset me

[cornermouse]

the most.

"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.

One of the centerpieces of my economic plan would be to say that we are going to offset the payroll tax, the most regressive of our taxes, so that families who are earning -- who are middle-income, individuals making $75,000 a year or less, that they would get a tax break so that families would see up to a thousand dollars' worth of relief."

Our economy is in bad shape. We are deep in debt. We can't afford to give any tax breaks to anyone. We need to restore tax rates for the wealthy to what they were pre-Dumbya era.

By the way, the transcript should you want to peruse it is found at

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4670271&page=1

[OzarkDem]

1. Giving them free health care would help

and would be a better alternative.

[cornermouse]

3. Yep.

A healthy workforce is an asset. A sick workforce due to inability to get medical care is a liability.

[Windy]

12. Mandated health care? Garnishing wages if you can't pay for it?

No, that is not the answer in this economy. People are losing their jobs. They cannot afford to have their wages garnished to pay for healthcare.

Not the right plan at this point in time.

[DemVet]

2. Uh....

...tax breaks on the lower income levels of $100,000 and below (yeah, I realize $100,000 is not exactly low for most people) has a history of actually stimulating the economy. People that retain this income actually spend it IN THE ECONOMY where it is taxed and brings in revenue for the government. Now, the same is not necessarily true for the very wealthy because they don't spend a like proportional amount compared to the lower income levels. Tax 'em, I say. Keep the tax rate low for the lower income levels.

Senator Obama was correct in his analysis on this issue, I believe.

[cornermouse]

4. Uh. No.

We're a long way past having discretionary spending money in the form of tax cuts. We are in an emergency situation. No more tax cuts/breaks to anyone until we get some of the debt that Bush has saddled us with paid off. The ones for the wealthy should be rescinded.

[DemVet]

6. Uh, yes...

...you obviously didn't read the text area of my post.

INCREASING taxes on income levels below $100,000 would be disastrous. Now, RAISING them on levels above that amount, in moderate levels, would be justified.

[cornermouse]

7. Uh. No.

You've bought the republican mantra that not lowering taxes is somehow a tax increase.

Taxes for those below $100,00 should remain the same. No tax cuts which is what Obama called for. Reinstatement of previous tax levels for the wealthy. No exceptions.

[DemVet]

17. Oh BS.

A tax cut on income levels below $100,000 would go a long way to stimulate the economy.

If you don't like it, you can pay my share also.

[Mezzo]

11. oh good. You said it, so I don't have to. nt

[rodeodance]

5. I have heard him say that before-It is the last thing SSec. needs.

[democrattotheend]

8. I disagree. I think a payroll tax cut for working people is a great idea.

As Obama said, it's one of the most regressive taxes we have, and most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes. We need to balance the budget, but to get the economy going, we also need to give working and middle class people more money to spend to jump-start the economy and help people catch up on their bills. A payroll tax cut or rebate would help make the tax code more fair and help give the economy a boost by giving money to people who will spend it right away (as opposed to more well-to-do people, who are more likely to save the money).

[cornermouse]

10. After we get some of the debt paid off and

restore some equilibrium I would have no problem with a tax cut for working poor and middle class. However, at this point with almost everything we buy being made overseas giving people spending money isn't going to re-create the American manufacturing sector. Instead the money will go directly overseas and make them stronger, not us. Given that and the fact that we're in an emergency situation at this time I say no more tax cuts for anyone.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. We Should Restore The Top Tax Rate To 91%

Like it was under Eisenhower. All told, the Rich paid about 50% in taxes back then, vs. 18% now. And GDP growth was much stronger back then.

[tekisui]

14. YES!! 90% tax on the top 1%, get us out of this hole!

[crispini]

13. Thanks for the link!

I agree about the wealthy, but the middle class are HURTING, and by the time Obama gets into office we'll be in worse shape. That said, it'll be tough to find the money, but we'll see if we can do it.

[PVnRT]

15. How is this cutting taxes for the wealthy?

He's right - payroll taxes are regressive once you get to the cap level. Cutting them for people below that level and removing the cap would increase revenues and would provide economic relief for middle-income workers.

What income level do you consider "wealthy"?

EDIT: In fact, he's also arguing for increasing capital gains taxes, which DO primarily target wealthier people. So, what is your problem here?

[izzybeans]

16. So you are against middle class tax cuts?

He also said he would repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

Are problem is not with taxes its with war and military spending and corporate subsidies.

[paulk]

18. Obama is pandering

he knows that we can't afford the tax cut he's proposing.