Lie One: No one will be compelled to buy coverage.

During the campaign, Obama insisted that he would not resort to an individual mandate to achieve universal coverage. In fact, he repeatedly ripped Hillary Clinton’s plan for proposing one. "To force people to buy coverage," he insisted, "you’ve got to have a very harsh penalty." What will this penalty be, he demanded? "Are you going to garnish their wages?" he asked Hillary in one debate.

Yet now, Obama is behaving as if he said never a hostile word about the mandate. Earlier this month, in a letter to Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., he blithely declared that he was all for "making every American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and making employers share in the cost."

But just like Hillary, he is refusing to say precisely what he will do to those who want to forgo insurance. There is a name for such a health care approach: It is called TonySopranoCare.

Dear Leader Obama believes he’s better than the Dear Leader of North Korea it seems. Will America soon regress in the image of NK? Past time to stop this IMO.

Lie Two: No new taxes on employer benefits.

Obama took his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, to the mat for suggesting that it might be better to remove the existing health care tax break that individuals get on their employer-sponsored coverage, but return the vast bulk–if not all–of the resulting revenues in the form of health care tax credits. This would theoretically have made coverage both more affordable and portable for everyone. Obama, however, would have none of it, portraying this idea simply as the removal of a tax break. "For the first time in history, he wants to tax your health benefits," he thundered. "Apparently, Sen. McCain doesn’t think it’s enough that your health premiums have doubled. He thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too."

Yet now Obama is signaling his willingness to go along with a far worse scheme to tax employer-sponsored benefits to fund the .6 trillion or so it will cost to provide universal coverage. Contrary to Obama’s allegations, McCain’s plan did not ultimately entail a net tax increase because he intended to return to individuals whatever money was raised by scrapping the tax deduction. Not so with Obama. He apparently told Sen. Baucus that he would consider the senator’s plan for rolling back the tax exclusion that expensive, Cadillac-style employer-sponsored plans enjoy, in order to pay for universal coverage. But, unlike McCain, he has said nothing about putting offsetting deductions or credits in the hands of individuals.

In other words, Obama might well end up doing what McCain never set out to do: Impose a net tax increase on health benefits for the first time in history.

Lie Three: Government can control rising health care costs better than the private sector.

Ignoring the reality that Medicare–the government-funded program for the elderly–has put the country on the path to fiscal ruin, Obama wants to model a government insurance plan–the so-called "public option"–after Medicare in order to control the country’s rising health care costs. Why? Because, he repeatedly claims, Medicare has far lower administrative costs and overhead than private plans–to wit, 3% for Medicare compared to 10% to 20% for private plans. Hence, he says, subjecting private plans to competition against an entity delivering such superior efficiency will release health care dollars for universal coverage.

But lower administrative costs do not necessarily mean greater efficiency. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office analysis last year chastised Medicare’s lax attitude on this front. "The traditional fee-for-service Medicare program does relatively little to manage benefits, which tends to reduce its administrative costs but may raise its overall spending relative to a more tightly managed approach," it noted on page 93.

In short, extending the Medicare model will further ruin–not improve–even the functioning aspects of private plans.

Lie Four: A public plan won’t be a Trojan horse for a single-payer monopoly.

Obama has repeatedly claimed that forcing private plans to compete with a public plan will simply "keep them honest" and give patients more options–not lead to a full-blown, Canadian-style, single-payer monopoly. As I argued in my previous column, this is wishful thinking given that government programs such as Medicare have a history of controlling costs by underpaying providers, who make up the losses by charging private plans more. Any public plan modeled after Medicare will greatly increase this forced subsidy, eventually driving private plans out of business, even if that weren’t Obama’s intention.

But, as it turns out, it very much is his intention. Before he decided to run for office–and even during the initial days of his campaign–Obama repeatedly said that he was in favor of a single-payer system. What’s mo

I have to be honest, though, while Pres. Obama adopted the meat of McCain’s proposal, he sure made it less inclusive and more regressive. Being some DINO Mr Obama proves to us once again.

John McCain proposed 00 tax credit to EVERYONE for purchasing health care.
If you are wealthy and in the 38% tax bracket that would give you 00/38% = 94 worth of health care free to everyone.
If you are middle class and in the 25% tax bracket that would give you 00/25% = ,000 worth of health care free to everyone.
See? Wealthy people would enjoy less tax exemptions. That’s progressive.

Now goes Mr. Obama actual proposal to put a cap on health care tax deductions. Needless to say that people who by health care insurance privately do not need to apply. This is how Obama encourages small businesses in their mission of jobs creation. But lets forget about such small irrelevant things.

There is now 100% tax detectability of health care group policy provided by employers. Obama wants to put 00 cap on this tax deductible benefits. Meaning that compared to McCain’s plan wealthy people whose tax deduction would be only 94 anyway under McCain will get no tax hit, but those in the middle class will be liable for the difference ,000 – ,000 = ,000 to lose its tax deductible and hence pay ,000 x 25% = ,000 extra tax.

So much for taxing the rich.
Ref:

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2009/2/26/4105759.html

There are more and I admit that some of my input data are not accurate, but its only because

a) The liberal media ignores the misdeeds of Barack Obama
b) The plans are still in the making – and this is the best point to stop them.
Ref:

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2009/2/26/4105759.html

There are more and I admit that some of my input data are not accurate, but its only because

a) The liberal media ignores the misdeeds of Barack Obama
b) The plans are still in the making – and this is the best point to stop them.

So far, McCain’s advertisements have not been persuasive. I don’t respond to fear mongering, so any arguments that include the words Ayers, Wright, and Muslim will not work.

I’m a fairy savvy fiscal conservative, so the OMG!Socialist and Marxist arguments won’t work either. I know that his claim that the USA has the highest business taxes in the world don’t take into account VATs, deductions and corporate tax credits.

I live a conservative lifestyle (despite being non-Christian) but don’t feel that government should intrude on personal lifestyle choices.

I’m pro-choice in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy (could be persuaded to go as low as 8 weeks) but feel that abortion should be available later in pregnancy to preserve the life and health of the mother and if the baby has defects that would subject it to inhuman suffering.

I believe that the USA should go to war only as a last resort after all efforts at diplomacy and sanctions have failed. When we do go to war we should strike at the heart of the enemy with insurmountable, overwhelming force.

That’s where I stand on the issues. Convince me to vote for John McCain.
So far, not a single well-reasoned argument in favor of voting for John McCain. Surely there must be ONE McCain supporter out there who can intelligently represent their candidate to moderate voters!
Spaghetti Cat: Thank you! You’re the first one to address real issues. If there were more McCain supporters like you, he might be doing better.

Obama:
Will cut taxes but when it expires, average US family will pay ,500 more in taxes. (CNN and MSNBC never makes it known)

The Child Tax Credit will decrease from ,000 to 0 a child

Income tax rates would rise around 3%-4.5%

AMT-Exemptions will decrease ,500 per filer

Business tax expenses- Maximum deduction amount will decrease ,000,from 0,000 to ,000

Capital Gains- Rates will rise 10%-20%

Income tax burden-will raise about 5% for many workers

Marriage penalty created

Dividends-rates to increase from 15% to 40%

50% average increased tax rates on lower income houses

He may not raise taxes on average American, but by allowing tax cuts to expire, will raise household expenses on an average family.

MCCAIN:

Wi make the Bush tax-cut permanent. And will add additional tax cuts for middle-class Americans.

Entrepreneurs are at the heart of American innovation, growth and prosperity. Entrepreneurs create the ultimate job security – a new, better opportunity if your current job goes away. Entrepreneurs should not be taxed into submission. John McCain will keep the top tax rate at 35 percent, maintain the 15 percent rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax. Small businesses are the heart of job growth; raising taxes on them hurts every workers.

To all those who believe that Obamwill "never" raise taxes but rather will cut taxes- Yes he will cut our taxes but when his tax cut plan has expires, we will pay for higher taxes than we pay now..

HENCE, his plan of cutting taxes is just a POLITICAL STRATEGY and not a real rescur for every American families.

MCCAIN’s tax cut policy is permanent, and perhaps the biggest tax cut in history as Alan Greenspan says.

-from an ECONOMICS student.