Obama Abroad

Details missing from Obama's Social Security plan

MyWay

Jul 28, 4:16 AM (ET)

By CHARLES BABINGTON

WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama's bid to place a new Social Security tax on very high incomes is either a bold or foolhardy plan, depending on who critiques it.

But its potential impact is almost impossible to gauge because he is providing few details on basic questions such as what the tax rate might be, what types of income would be taxed and how the taxpayers' benefits would be affected.

The Democratic presidential candidate says he would work with lawmakers from both parties to resolve such matters. Voters generally applaud bipartisan cooperation, but they apparently will go to the polls this fall with only a vague notion of what Obama has in mind.

Obama made headlines June 13 when he called for a Social Security payroll tax on incomes above $250,000 a year. Currently, the tax is levied only on the first $102,000 of each worker's income. That covers the entire salary of most Americans.

Obama would not apply the Social Security tax to annual incomes between $102,000 and $250,000, a move meant to avoid alienating several million upper-income voters. His proposed change would apply only to those earning more than $250,000 a year, or about 3 percent of all taxpayers.

When he outlined his idea in the battleground state of Ohio, Obama said it is unfair for middle-class earners to pay the Social Security tax "on every dime they make," while millionaires and billionaires pay it on "only a very small percentage of their income." He also said the Social Security program needs revamping to bolster its long-term viability.

With Obama offering few details, several news accounts suggested that his proposed tax on very high incomes would be applied just as the existing Social Security tax is levied on incomes up to $102,000.
All workers pay a 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax on such income. Their employers match it, for a total tax of 12.4 percent. The tax applies only to earned income, not to passive income such as dividends and interest.

In recent weeks, Obama aides have quietly indicated that the proposed tax on incomes above $250,000 might be different in key aspects. The rate probably would be about 2 percent to 4 percent, not 6.2 percent, they said. It's also possible that it would apply to more types of income, including dividends and investments.

As for benefits, the campaign has not said how the proposed tax on very high incomes would translate into new retirement income, if any, for those who pay it.

Continuation - Details missing from Obama's Social Security plan

The campaign "has not put forth a specific plan" for Social Security, Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee said in an interview.

Perhaps because so many details are missing, Obama's Social Security proposal has generated relatively little debate on the campaign trail. But any change to the massive program could have far-reaching effects.

Many Americans rely on Social Security for much or all of their retirement income. Some workers, meanwhile, do not realize how much is withheld from each paycheck for Social Security and, to a lesser degree, Medicare.

Nearly three-fourths of all workers pay more in these payroll taxes than in federal income taxes, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The center assumes that workers pay the full 12.4 percent in Social Security taxes, contending that employers would devote their half of the total to salaries if they did not have to make the 50-50 match.

Given the dearth of details about Obama's plans, some Republicans have criticized it, using assumptions that Democrats reject. Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President Bush, argues that high earners would pay the full 12.4 percent tax rate on income above $250,000 while receiving no added benefits.

"A high-income entrepreneur would see his or her federal marginal tax rate rise to 53 percent from 37.7 percent," Lindsey wrote in a June 20 Wall Street Journal op-ed column.

The marginal tax rate is what a person pays on each additional dollar earned. Lindsey wrote that Obama's plans would provide a powerful incentive for the highest-earning Americans to work less, invest less and contribute less to the economy.

Former Oklahoma Sen. Don Nickles, a Republican, agreed. A person who owns two restaurants and makes $500,000 a year would have little incentive to open a third restaurant under Obama's tax plans, and might even close one, Nickles said in an interview. "He's not going to be hiring more people," Nickles said.

99 days til election on the wall, 99 days of election, take one day down and pass it around, 99 days of election til the wall...

McCain's true colors are coming out like a flood of red with his stance on Affirmative Action in Arizona. He is a hater of all that does not benefit the Republican party. He despises the Democratic process and would just assume knock down the pillars of Justice that has been rebuilt on the backs of the people. Obama will re-unite our divided country the same way MLK Jr did by standing up to the hatred and evil of the few. This is a test of what the Constitution was made for. If it fails, this country fails.

McCain Steps Up Criticism of Obama Over Iraq

DENVER (AP) ??? Republican presidential candidate John McCain, ridiculing Barack Obama for "the audacity of hopelessness" in his policies on Iraq, said Friday that the entire Middle East could have plunged into war had U.S. troops been withdrawn as his rival advocated.

Speaking to an audience of Hispanic military veterans, McCain stepped up his criticism of Obama while the Illinois senator continued his headline-grabbing tour of the Middle East and Europe. The Arizona Republican contended that Obama's policies ??? he opposed sending more troops to Iraq in the "surge" that McCain supported ??? would have led to defeat there and in Afghanistan.

"We rejected the audacity of hopelessness, and we were right," McCain said, a play on the title of Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope."

McCain laid out a near-apocalyptic chain of events he said could have resulted had Obama managed to stop the troop buildup ordered by President Bush: U.S. forces retreating under fire, the Iraqi army collapsing, civilian casualties increasing dramatically, al-Qaeda killing cooperative Sunni sheiks and finding safe havens to train fighters and launch attacks on Americans, and civil war, genocide and a wider conflict.

"Above all, America would have been humiliated and weakened," he said. "Terrorists would have seen our defeat as evidence America lacked the resolve to defeat them. As Iraq descended into chaos, other countries in the Middle East would have come to the aid of their favored factions, and the entire region might have erupted in war."

Noting that the buildup was unpopular with most Americans, McCain said: "Sen. Obama told the American people what he thought you wanted to hear. I told you the truth."

Obama has called for a withdrawal over 16 months. McCain again criticized him for advocating "a politically expedient timetable" and for voting against funding for troops. McCain had raised eyebrows earlier this week by charging that Obama "would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign."

Mccain says that we, as in the USA should kick the Russians out of the (G-8)...


Though the Russians in fact Supply the World with Gas and a Major US Supplier of Oil !!

Not to Mention Russia has the Largest Stockpile of Nuclear Missiles.

Russia's economy is very Stong and Growing, they have No National Debt and last but not least.....

We are in Big Debt with China and neither of these (2 Countries) like us.

Yet, Semi-Senile McCain is telling Stephonopilis that we "Should put them in their place" and that "We should kick them out of the (G-8)

We Owe China and Russia Supplies Us with Gas and Ol, among other things and We are going to kick Russia out of the (G-8)


Ha !!!

-----------------------

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/17/europe/EU-GEN-Russia-China-Maneuvers.php

Semi-Senile , Warring John McCain, At It...Again

Source: The Assc. Press

Russia and China hold joint military exercise

The Associated PressPublished: August 17, 2007


CHEBARKUL TESTING RANGE, Russia: President Vladimir Putin said Friday he had ordered strategic bombers to resume regular long-range patrols as Russian and Chinese forces held their first joint military exercise on Russian soil ??? a show of armed muscle aimed at sending a pointed message to the United States.

The resumption of bombing patrols, which analysts say signaled a significant change for Russian military policy, comes amid a growing chill in U.S.-Russian relations, strained over Washington's criticism of Russia's democracy record, Moscow's objections to U.S. missile defense plans and differences over global crises.

Both Moscow and Beijing share a heightening distrust of what they see as the United States' oversized role and influence in global politics, and the two former Cold War rivals have forged a "strategic partnership" aimed at counterbalancing Washington's policies.

The Russian-Chinese war games, which took place near the Urals Mountain city of Chelyabinsk, coincided with Russian air force maneuvers involving 20 strategic bombers which ranged far over the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans.

One of those drills, involving 11 Russian aircraft, prompted NATO member Norway to scramble F-16 fighter jets to observe and photograph the Russian planes as they flew over the Norwegian Sea.


Putin says Russia will resume long-range bomber patrols


Russian proposal calls for broader security pact...


The group of strategic bombers, early warning aircraft, fighter jets and refueling planes represented the biggest show of Russian air power in that region since the early 1990s, said Brig. Gen. Ole Asak, chief of the Norwegian Joint Air Operations Center.

"We haven't seen that kind of activity in a very long time," Asak told The Associated Press. "Not since the early 1990s. It was quite impressive to see."

In announcing the policy change, Putin said halting long-range bombers' flights after the Soviet collapse had affected Russia's security as other nations had continued such missions ??? an oblique reference to the United States.

"I have made a decision to resume regular flights of Russian strategic aviation," Putin said in televised remarks. "We proceed from the assumption that our partners will view the resumption of flights of Russia's strategic aviation with understanding."

----------------
McCain's New Ad and McCain's Hypocrisy

by William Domingo

Sat Jul 26, 2008

McCain is using Obama's canceled trip to a U.S. militay base in Germany as a reason to claim that Obama is anti-troops, even though Obama's trip was canceled by the Pentagon, not by Obama. Now with McCain going on and on in a political attack ad about what a horrible and un-patiotic thing it was for Obama not to visit those troops, come to find out, McCain knows better. How does he know? Follow me after the jump.


Barack Obama canceled a pre-planned visit to the troops in Germany yesterday after being told by the Pentagon that the trip would violate a Pentagon policy prohibiting campaign stops on military installations.

No problem there.

However, the McCain campaign is now blasting Obama:

The McCain camp has nonetheless been using Obama's canceled trip to insinuate that he's anti-troops.

"Barack Obama is wrong," McCain spokesperson Brian Rogers said in a statement yesterday. "It is never 'inappropriate' to visit our men and women in the military."

It turns out the same thing happened to John McCain himself back in April of this year.

But of course when it happens to him, he brags that it "was a good thing" that HE didn't visit the troops, "because he always follows the rules."

The problem here is that the McCain campaign was denied a visit to a military base under the same policy back in April. Of course, there was no outcry or false outrage from Brian Rogers at that time.

From CNN:

With Department of Defense rules prohibiting political campaigning on military bases, it was determined that in some cases McCain could visit the installations as a senator but could not engage in any political activity or have news media present.

McCain campaign officials said Thursday they intentionally did not campaign on military property.

"We follow the rules," said senior McCain adviser Steve Schmidt.
I have to ask, just how much lies, hypocrisy, and double-talk is this man willing to resort to in his quest for the presidency ?
------------------------------

LETS THINK PEOPLE....

YOU HAVE A YOUNG, HANDSOME, CHARISMATIC (46-47 YR OLD) MAN VERSUS A VERY OLD, JEALOUS, PASTY PALE, SICKLY LOOKING, (71-72 YR.) OLD MAN, WHOSE VERY FORGETFUL, EVEN WHEN THE FACTS ARE CRYSTAL CLEAR, HELL, RUSSIA'S NEW PRESIDENT IS (42 YRS. OLD)....

JUST WHO DO YOU THINK THE CAMERAS ARE GOING TO BE ON ...HMMMM

(43 YR OLD) JOHN F. KENNEDY VS RICHARD M. NIXON...

AN THE WINNER JOHN F. KENNEDY !!!

A 5O SOMETHING BILL CLINTON OR AN OLD GEORGE BUSH SR....

AN THE WINNER IS...

BILL CLINTON !!!

MCCAIN IS JUST TOO DAMN...OLD !!!

---------------------------
"TIME MAGAZINE"

McCain Voted "AGAINST" providing $360 Million for Armored Vehicles for Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. OBAMA VOTED "FOR" PROVIDING SOLDIERS WITH ARMORED VEHICLES.

In 2005, McCain voted "AGAINST" providing $360.8 million for armored tactical wheeled vehicles for units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

OBAMA VOTED "FOR" PROVIDING ARMORED TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLES FOR UNITS DEPLOYED IN IRAQ, AND AFGHANISTAN.

In 2005, McCain voted "AGAINST" providing $5 million dollars to establish ballistics engineering research centers to advance knowledge and application to improve the safety of Land-Based Military Vehicles.

OBAMA VOTED "FOR" PROVIDING MONEY FOR RESEARCH WHICH WOULD MAKE LAND BASED MILITARY VEHICLE SAFER FOR SOLDIERS.

Note: Bush Sr. is the Only President to have Both National-International Experience, CIA Director, 2 Terms as Vice President, to (Mr.666 Himself) Ron-ald Wil-son Rea-gan and he lasted only 1 Term as President Of The USA...

George Bush Jr. Gov.Of Texas he had 1 Full Term, thats 4 yrs. State Experience (Only)

Note: Bush had No "National-International Experience", and He still has No Experience to this day and Some of You Low Lifes Voted his A!! as President... TWICE

The Bush Effect has Severe Ramifications, Quite Severe Ramifications !!

So much for... EXPERIENCE

---------------------------------

PS: JOHN MCCAIN SAYS "HE KNOWS HOW TO WIN WARS"

JOHN MCCAIN, PLEASE NAME AN ORIG. JOHN MCCAIN, MILITARY STRATEGY, YOU CONCIEVED,CREATED AND JOINT MILITARY CHEIFS OF STAFF USED OR HAD IMPLEMENTED IN ANY SUCCESSFUL WAR(S) ?

AND DON'T SAY "THE SURGE" THE SURGE WAS NOT YOUR CREATION, YOU JUST SAID, I ENDORSE IT AND VOTED ALONG WITH OTHERS AND THAT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS...

CREATING YOUR OWN MILITARY STRATEGY AND OTHERS SIGN ON AND VOTE IN FAVOR OF IMPLEMENTING OR USING IT...

THATS NOT CONCIEVING AND CREATING WAR STRATEGIES FOR WINNING WARS, THATS SIGNING UP AND VOTING FOR SOMEONELSES ORIGINAL IDEA, ALONG WITH OTHERS ??

ANS: NONE

I PRAY MCCAIN IS NOT COUNTING VIET NAM...

THAT WOULD INDEED BE LAUGHABLE !!!