Feisty John McCain works hard, can't score

[min0 lee]

BY THOMAS M. DEFRANK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF

Thursday, October 16th 2008, 1:54 AM

It was John McCain's last big chance to tame the massive headwinds buffeting his fading campaign. He gave it his Navy blue-and-gold all, but a feisty showing couldn't reverse a national psyche weary of the Republican brand.

Barack Obama came into the Hofstra debate handily ahead. Nothing Wednesday night altered that stark reality for McCain and his dispirited partisans.

This race will likely tighten in the next 19 days. But Obama enjoys not just the lead but the easier path: more promising electoral math and the luxury of an unabating economic typhoon that reinforces Democrats' historical advantage on pocketbook issues.

RELATED: WHINY MAC MAKES ALL-OUT ATTACK

"This is a closed jury now," a Republican veteran of many presidential campaigns said, wistfully. "The country has rendered its verdict on McCain."

Uncharacteristically, the country is so fearful of the future it's poised to take a chance on an untested junior senator with rhetorical gifts and a personal energy his aides believe exude the hope and optimism America craves.

"He scares the hell out of me," a veteran GOP consultant grumbled, "but he's a symbol - and people are voting for a symbol this time."

RELATED: TWISTS, TURNS OVER JOE THE PLUMBER

Debates are about altering the status quo. It usually takes a major goof for that to happen if both contenders are perceived as up to the job. Whatever anxieties many voters harbored about Obama's youth and flimsy r??©sum??© eased with his confident performance in the inaugural contest.

Obama's demeanor was a rerun of the second debate. He was calm, collected and on message - times are tough - and parried McCain's frequent fusillades without getting flustered. The game plan was apparent: project the aura of a President-in-waiting yet not seeming cocky or patronizing.

Needing to break serious furniture, McCain slashed and burned, landing several clean zingers. Stylistically, he was more engaging than his first two outings - for a while. Midway, his legendary sarcasm got the worst of him. He knows better but can't help himself. It's one of his least appealing traits - small, at times mean, and unpresidential.

HINCKLEY: LOTS OF TV FUN AS CANDIDATES FINALLY SHOW PERSONALITY

McCain successfully drew the contrast with his more liberal adversary, but didn't offer a compelling vision for where he wants to take the country. And he couldn't wean himself from flogging those legislative earmarks, which are small ball amid the current economic conflagration.

Throughout the fall and again Wednesday night, McCain has lifted heavily from Hillary Clinton's failed playbook. She repeatedly attacked Obama's judgment, character and experience.

The strategy misfired badly. It hasn't worked any better for him.

That's why McCain is trailing, playing defense in states he should have salted away long ago, and hoping for a seismic event to entice a second look from voters.

"It goes against my nature to say this," one of the Republican Party's most respected mandarins glumly conceded, "but this election is slipping away."

tdefrank@nydailynews.com

 

[min0 lee]

â?????I Am Not President Bush.â??????

At the Hofstra debate, the simple sentence it took John McCain two years to utter.

 

[Dale Mabry]

I feel real bad about Joe the Plumber. How can he afford to feed his family on $250k a year? Honestly, a company making $250k and a person making $250k are not the same, what an ignorant fuck.

I thought McCain was winning the debate until he brought this up. It shows how out of touch he is. How well has trickle-down worked for middle class Americans? Well, let's see, American companies outsource thousands of jobs to Asia, and AIG gets bailed out, only to send their top salespeople, top salespeople in a company that is tanking, on a $440k spa weekend, much to the chagrin of shareholders who have lost a fortune.

Now, McCain's economic plan says give businesses tax cuts with no contingencies, Obama's will give tax cuts to companies that create jobs. Now, you tell me, which Joe the plumber is more likely to create a job? It's fucked up, but trickle-down only works when you are forced to trickle-down. This whole mess we are in is not the dems fault, not the GOP's fault, and not President Bush's fault. It's the greed of these executives. It's the reason the economy is in the shitter and it's the reason this bailout won't work. Newsflash Corporate America, the middle class is the people you employ and the people who buy your product. If you take it all, there will be none left to give you. Unless, of course, politicians give them a bailout with taxpayer dollars. Idiots.

 

[brogers]

I feel real bad about Joe the Plumber. How can he afford to feed his family on $250k a year? Honestly, a company making $250k and a person making $250k are not the same, what an ignorant fuck.

I thought McCain was winning the debate until he brought this up. It shows how out of touch he is. How well has trickle-down worked for middle class Americans? Well, let's see, American companies outsource thousands of jobs to Asia, and AIG gets bailed out, only to send their top salespeople, top salespeople in a company that is tanking, on a $440k spa weekend, much to the chagrin of shareholders who have lost a fortune.

Now, McCain's economic plan says give businesses tax cuts with no contingencies, Obama's will give tax cuts to companies that create jobs. Now, you tell me, which Joe the plumber is more likely to create a job? It's fucked up, but trickle-down only works when you are forced to trickle-down. This whole mess we are in is not the dems fault, not the GOP's fault, and not President Bush's fault. It's the greed of these executives. It's the reason the economy is in the shitter and it's the reason this bailout won't work. Newsflash Corporate America, the middle class is the people you employ and the people who buy your product. If you take it all, there will be none left to give you. Unless, of course, politicians give them a bailout with taxpayer dollars. Idiots.

It seems you misunderstand how a business operates, as well as Obama's tax plan. He's repeatedly said this "250,000" number. What is this, Gross, Net, something else? A business with 4 employees or less could easily gross well over 250,000 a year. A slightly larger business could easily net 250,000 a year. Small businesses are often Subchapter S Corporations, which let them file their income as personal income. Thus "Joe" or whoever, is going to be out thousands of dollars extra. That money could have been used to provide a job, invest in new equipment, or some other expenditure to grow the business, intead of going into the pocket of a government bureaucrat.

 

[brogers]

The tax credit is bogus, by the way. $3,000 one-time tax credit for job creation... A job with labor burden could cost well into 40-70K. It's a pittance and won't do anything. Cutting taxes is a permanent benefit to all businesses.

 

[TexanTA1996]

I feel real bad about Joe the Plumber. How can he afford to feed his family on $250k a year?

Looks like that community college served you well. If you give a tax break to someone making 30k a year, that doesn't do a damn thing for the economy. If you give a tax break to a small business owner who needs to hire several employees, this allows him to create jobs and help 3 or 4 people. What Obama doesn't tell you is that his "tax break" is in the form of a credit, essentially. He's going to take money from successful individuals such as small business owners and give it to other people. Socialism.

How well has trickle-down worked for middle class Americans? Well, let's see, American companies outsource thousands of jobs to Asia

That's because our corporate tax rate is so high compared to other countries, genius. Something that Obama isn't going to do a damn thing about. As long as it's cheaper for companies to outsource, they will continue to do it. McCain wanted to cut corporate taxes so companies have an incentive to keep jobs here, but you don't have the mental capacity to realize why outsourcing happens- so all you hear is "omggg111 he wants to give money to big companies!11".

 

[Arnold]

Small businesses are often Subchapter S Corporations, which let them file their income as personal income. Thus "Joe" or whoever, is going to be out thousands of dollars extra. That money could have been used to provide a job, invest in new equipment, or some other expenditure to grow the business, intead of going into the pocket of a government bureaucrat.

say what?

 

[IronAddict]

John Mccain

 

[brogers]

say what?

Small business income, even one that is a subchapter S corporation, will be subject to Obama's personal income tax hikes.

 

[Dale Mabry]

Looks like that community college served you well. If you give a tax break to someone making 30k a year, that doesn't do a damn thing for the economy. If you give a tax break to a small business owner who needs to hire several employees, this allows him to create jobs and help 3 or 4 people. What Obama doesn't tell you is that his "tax break" is in the form of a credit, essentially. He's going to take money from successful individuals such as small business owners and give it to other people. Socialism.



That's because our corporate tax rate is so high compared to other countries, genius. Something that Obama isn't going to do a damn thing about. As long as it's cheaper for companies to outsource, they will continue to do it. McCain wanted to cut corporate taxes so companies have an incentive to keep jobs here, but you don't have the mental capacity to realize why outsourcing happens- so all you hear is "omggg111 he wants to give money to big companies!11".

They are not keeping jobs here. It will always be cheaper to send the job overseas when you are paying pennies to the dollar to employ those people. These businesses are not going to create jobs unless you make them. Just giving them a random tax cut "Just because" isn't going to do shit. Let's assume McCain does cut taxes as he says and it truly costs 40-70k to hire someone. Let's say he cuts the corporate tax rate by 10%, which will never happen, and we will use $250k as the number. That saves the business an additional $25k per year, not enough to hire a single employee here. That directly benefits that business owner, and will not, in any way, benefit anyone else directly any more than cutting middle class income tax. At least with the middle class you are talking volume. Cutting $3000 a year from 500,000 people will lead to $1,500,000,000 more dollars being spent, as opposed to 10,000 people having $25k extra leading to $250,000,000. Now, let's take a larger business under the same model, and are they going to hire 1 person here, or outsource their call center to India to handle more volume? If you haven't figured that a company's sole purpose is to maximize profits and not to build a better economy, you truly have your head up your ass. It will always be cheaper to hire 5 people at $3/hr than it will to hire 1 person at $20/hr.

Btw, you really show your ignorance by initiating a discussion with a personal attack. I would put my education, IQ, anything you would want up against yours any day.

 

[mcguin]

They are not keeping jobs here. It will always be cheaper to send the job overseas when you are paying pennies to the dollar to employ those people. These businesses are not going to create jobs unless you make them. Just giving them a random tax cut "Just because" isn't going to do shit. Let's assume McCain does cut taxes as he says and it truly costs 40-70k to hire someone. Let's say he cuts the corporate tax rate by 10%, which will never happen, and we will use $250k as the number. That saves the business an additional $25k per year, not enough to hire a single employee here. That directly benefits that business owner, and will not, in any way, benefit anyone else directly any more than cutting middle class income tax. At least with the middle class you are talking volume. Cutting $3000 a year from 500,000 people will lead to $1,500,000,000 more dollars being spent, as opposed to 10,000 people having $25k extra leading to $250,000,000. Now, let's take a larger business under the same model, and are they going to hire 1 person here, or outsource their call center to India to handle more volume? If you haven't figured that a company's sole purpose is to maximize profits and not to build a better economy, you truly have your head up your ass. It will always be cheaper to hire 5 people at $3/hr than it will to hire 1 person at $20/hr.
Btw, you really show your ignorance by initiating a discussion with a personal attack. I would put my education, IQ, anything you would want up against yours any day.

actually those 5 people at 3 bucks an hour are more than likely either mentally slow or mexican, i'd rather have one person making 20 bucks an hour running a part of my business.

 

[maniclion]

Do we help 80% of the people who could really use money now or do we help 20% of the people who just want money now?

 

[brogers]

Do we help 80% of the people who could really use money now or do we help 20% of the people who just want money now?

Top 25% of income earners pay 86% of the income tax bill in this country.

No one is saying don't cut lower/middle class people's taxes, but the fact is your so called "20%" don't pay any income tax. The bottom ~35% of income earners pay ZERO dollars in income tax. Obama's plan is outright redistribution of wealth. It is a transfer payment, taking the fruits of one person's labor and giving it to another who did not earn it. Refundable tax credits which are paid for by someone who is creating wealth in the economy are given to someone who doesn't contribute a dime to the treasury in income tax.

At what point do you stop punishing success and stop rewarding failure? At what point do you say "Where in the Constitution is this power of government authorized? Where is the "Spreading the wealth" clause at?"

 

[maniclion]

Top 25% of income earners pay 86% of the income tax bill in this country.

No one is saying don't cut lower/middle class people's taxes, but the fact is your so called "20%" don't pay any income tax. The bottom ~35% of income earners pay ZERO dollars in income tax. Obama's plan is outright redistribution of wealth. It is a transfer payment, taking the fruits of one person's labor and giving it to another who did not earn it. Refundable tax credits which are paid for by someone who is creating wealth in the economy are given to someone who doesn't contribute a dime to the treasury in income tax.

At what point do you stop punishing success and stop rewarding failure? At what point do you say "Where in the Constitution is this power of government authorized? Where is the "Spreading the wealth" clause at?"

The fruits of my labor and my co-workers labor go to my boss who was wealthy from his families money before he started this business. I am underpaid big time as are most of my co-workers and I imagine many in the rest of the country are the same way. Almost every dime made in this country is due to working class Americans busting their ass for the man. I haven't said anything about distributing the wealth all I'm saying is give the average working class hero a break, a little golden umbrella in his cocktail cause if we can keep giving golden parachutes to the fat cats the least we can do is give "Joe Sixpack" a golden beer can right?

 

[min0 lee]

Btw, you really show your ignorance by initiating a discussion with a personal attack.

That's his MO.

 

[TexanTA1996]

Do we help 80% of the people who could really use money now or do we help 20% of the people who just want money now?

Do you even realize that while promising to lower taxes, historically, democrats have raised taxes-and not just on the wealthy...Clinton promised a middle class tax break some 16 years ago and WE NEVER SAW IT. Obama says one thing, statistically he's most likely going to do the opposite based on historical facts.

People don't become successful by accident, 99% of the time. If you work hard in this country, you will attain success. Go to college, grad school-whatever you have to do. Why should we take money from successful people and give it to people who have G.E.Ds or who are high school drop outs?

 

[min0 lee]

Do you even realize that while promising to lower taxes, historically, democrats have raised taxes-and not just on the wealthy...Clinton promised a middle class tax break some 16 years ago and WE NEVER SAW IT. Obama says one thing, statistically he's most likely going to do the opposite based on historical facts.

And the Republicans never do?
"Read my lips: no new taxes"

*The Dems were also responsible..

 

[Arnold]

Small business income, even one that is a subchapter S corporation, will be subject to Obama's personal income tax hikes.

ok, but S-Corps operate just like C-Corps, owners get paid by a salary, it's not pass thru like an LLC based on membership % and LLC profit, so not really sure what you meant in that first post?

 

[maniclion]

Bush's trickle down hasn't worked, so how is McCains going to? I think raising taxes on Corporations and then offering the right incentives will be much more effective.....

 

[maniclion]

Do you even realize that while promising to lower taxes, historically, democrats have raised taxes-and not just on the wealthy...Clinton promised a middle class tax break some 16 years ago and WE NEVER SAW IT. Obama says one thing, statistically he's most likely going to do the opposite based on historical facts.

People don't become successful by accident, 99% of the time. If you work hard in this country, you will attain success. Go to college, grad school-whatever you have to do. Why should we take money from successful people and give it to people who have G.E.Ds or who are high school drop outs?

No matter what taxes are going to have to be raised sooner or later to pay for all of the fiscal irresponsibility of the REPUBLICANS for the past 8 years. I'd rather have a little money taken now than a large chunk taken later....

 

[maniclion]

People don't become successful by accident, 99% of the time. If you work hard in this country, you will attain success. Go to college, grad school-whatever you have to do. Why should we take money from successful people and give it to people who have G.E.Ds or who are high school drop outs?

Any money that gets distributed to the average consumer goes full circle right back into the richest peoples pockets..... When most people get a tax refund they don't invest it and leave it sitting for years on end they go out and buy products and services that those corporations and small business owners provide. My gf and I put our tax refund in our savings to boost how much we had in order to ensure our chances of getting a home equity loan and then we ended up spending $200,000 on goods and services that alone helped several businesses make a tidy profit.....

 

[brogers]

The fruits of my labor and my co-workers labor go to my boss who was wealthy from his families money before he started this business. I am underpaid big time as are most of my co-workers and I imagine many in the rest of the country are the same way. Almost every dime made in this country is due to working class Americans busting their ass for the man. I haven't said anything about distributing the wealth all I'm saying is give the average working class hero a break, a little golden umbrella in his cocktail cause if we can keep giving golden parachutes to the fat cats the least we can do is give "Joe Sixpack" a golden beer can right?

This is a free country. If you feel your employer is unfairly compensating you, no one is compelling you to continue working for that business. Your employer, or anyone who starts a business for that matter, takes on risk, and they rightfully can expect a return on their risk, should it succeed. Your employer is not entitled to your service, you have agreed to exchange your services for monetary compensation from him freely.

You failed to address anything I said, by the way. The bottom "20%" you claim need a break already pay zero taxes. Under George Bush the number of people with $0 in income tax liability has increased, drastically. You must be a big fan of his policies.

You are not entitled to anyone's hard-earned money via a transfer payment. Nor is anyone in the bottom 20%, top 20%, or whatever. What you earn should be yours and what I earn should be mine. Taking away motivation (profit) for investments in business ventures is utter foolishness in a crappy economy. It does not take a genius to figure this out.

 

[Dale Mabry]

Do you even realize that while promising to lower taxes, historically, democrats have raised taxes-and not just on the wealthy...Clinton promised a middle class tax break some 16 years ago and WE NEVER SAW IT. Obama says one thing, statistically he's most likely going to do the opposite based on historical facts.

People don't become successful by accident, 99% of the time. If you work hard in this country, you will attain success. Go to college, grad school-whatever you have to do. Why should we take money from successful people and give it to people who have G.E.Ds or who are high school drop outs?

I agree with all of this. Having said that, how well have we done on GWB's tax cuts? Taxes are going up no matter what, we are fighting a shitty war, and have 2 more on deck. The arabs are not going to pay us shit, and the salary for Team America world police is $0. This money isn't going to come from nowhere, it is coming in the form of a tax hike, no matter who gets in to office.

 

[brogers]

ok, but S-Corps operate just like C-Corps, owners get paid by a salary, it's not pass thru like an LLC based on membership % and LLC profit, so not really sure what you meant in that first post?

This is incorrect. Yes, owners can place themselves as salaried employees. What matters though, is the corporate income is taxed in C-Corps, while in an S-Corp is not subjected to the corporate tax. S-Corp profits will be divided amongst the owners/shareholders and be taxed at their personal income tax rate. Thus, increasing personal income tax rates will harm small businesses, which are often S-Corps or sole propreitorships.

 

[Arnold]

This is incorrect. Yes, owners can place themselves as salaried employees. What matters though, is the corporate income is taxed in C-Corps, while in an S-Corp is not subjected to the corporate tax. S-Corp profits will be divided amongst the owners/shareholders and be taxed at their personal income tax rate. Thus, increasing personal income tax rates will harm small businesses, which are often S-Corps or sole propreitorships.

you're confusing the way LLC's and S-corp's are taxed, what you said above is how LLC's work, not S-corps, I have one of each.

 

[min0 lee]

Joe the Plumber may not be Joe, and he may need a provisional ballot

This morning's burning question: Can Joe the Plumber, star of last night's presidential debate, vote in the upcoming election? There doesn't appear to be a Joe Wurzelbacher -- the Toledo man whose vote was sought directly by Barack Obama the other day, and by John McCain last night on national television -- registered.

The Toledo Blade noted online this morning, as this became a media obsession: "Linda Howe, executive director of the Lucas County Board of Elections, said a Samuel Joseph Worzelbacher, whose address and age match Joe the Plumber's, registered in Lucas County on Sept. 10, 1992. He voted in his first primary on March 4, 2008, registering as a Republican.

"Ms. Howe said that the name may be misspelled in the database."

Public records databases examined by The Plain Dealer, including those for voter registration, indicate that Samuel Joseph Worzelbacher (note the "o" instead of the "u"), with the same street and age as the now famous Joe the Plumber, voted in 2002, 2005 and 2007. But he listed the Natural Law Party as his party.
Other records, however, show there is a Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (with a "u") at that address. Based on people who appear to be his relatives, that is probably the correct spelling. Which raises the question: Is Joe the Plumber given a provisional ballot when he votes? Since there is a bit of confusion, obviously, would his registration be held out for scrutiny?

Joe, as he is called, talked with Katie Couric right after the debate last night. His opinion of Obama is that he tap dances "almost as good as Sammy Davis Jr."

He noted that there were TV satellite trucks parked outside his house. He's in high demand for interviews. That explains this recording on a phone number that comes up for him on some searches: "Joe Wurzelbacher does not live here. Don't call for Joe Wurzelbacher anymore."

 

[brogers]

you're confusing the way LLC's and S-corp's are taxed, what you said above is how LLC's work, not S-corps, I have one of each.

Both LLCs and S-Corps have "pass-through" taxation. S-Corps and LLCs do not pay corporate income tax.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is. The simple fact is that most small businesses (SP, Partnership, LLC, S-Corp) are going to have their business income taxed at individual income tax rates.

edit: I realize I'm dragging this off topic and won't bother arguing this (S-Corp/LLC) anymore.

 

[maniclion]

You failed to address anything I said, by the way. The bottom "20%" you claim need a break already pay zero taxes. Under George Bush the number of people with $0 in income tax liability has increased, drastically. You must be a big fan of his policies. I never said anything about the leeches in our nation. The 20% I refer to who want money but don't really need it are the ones with all of it, the ones who will weather economic hardship without worry.....

You are not entitled to anyone's hard-earned money via a transfer payment. Nor is anyone in the bottom 20%, top 20%, or whatever. What you earn should be yours and what I earn should be mine. Taking away motivation (profit) for investments in business ventures is utter foolishness in a crappy economy. It does not take a genius to figure this out.

I never said I was entitled to anything except for my money......And nobody is taking anything away from anyone and giving it to anyone else when we get taxed....Taxes is us giving our money into the pot to distribute among services that benefit all of us.....If a corporation doesn't want to pay so much into the pot their will be incentives that will cut that amount for a little sacrifice in how they conduct their business, those incentives in the long run are meant to benefit the nation as a whole just as taxes do....

 

[brogers]

I never said I was entitled to anything except for my money......And nobody is taking anything away from anyone and giving it to anyone else when we get taxed....Taxes is us giving our money into the pot to distribute among services that benefit all of us.....If a corporation doesn't want to pay so much into the pot their will be incentives that will cut that amount for a little sacrifice in how they conduct their business, those incentives in the long run are meant to benefit the nation as a whole just as taxes do....

hello? hello?

Giving "tax cuts to 95% of people", 35% of which pay ZERO taxes is outright REDISTRIBUTION. It is not paying for a service. It is not paying into a pot. It is a transfer payment of wealth that one person generated given to another who did NOTHING. Those people who pay no taxes will be getting a check from the government via the "refundable tax credits" Obama is proposing.

The country's tax dollars will be going to write checks to people.

 

[maniclion]

hello? hello?

Giving "tax cuts to 95% of people", 35% of which pay ZERO taxes is outright REDISTRIBUTION. It is not paying for a service. It is not paying into a pot. It is a transfer payment of wealth that one person generated given to another who did NOTHING. Those people who pay no taxes will be getting a check from the government via the "refundable tax credits" Obama is proposing.

The country's tax dollars will be going to write checks to people.

So if that time comes invest in stock of beer and whatever else lazy jobless non-tax paying people buy because you know they aren't going to keep the money in their savings account.....the money goes out and it flows right back into the hands of the original point of origin...makes perfect sense to me. Kind of like priming a pump to get the flow going....