The first topic McCain said he would introduce a new tax system. A system that would give the tax payers a choice of whether or not to participate in the new system or the old one. Good boy Jonny!! Did you think of that one on your own? Give him some bubbles. Now Mr. Conservative, just exactly how do you propose to pay for this new simultaneous system? You are not proposing getting rid of the old one and loosing up money used to run it. Don't you think that in the interest of getting back the biggest refund check people will have to do their taxes both ways to find out which system to use to achieve that end? You are just going to make government BIGGER! That is a liberal idea if I ever heard one. I mean it is one of the staples of the conservative Battle cry. "liberal democrats just want to increase government size and waste your tax money!!"
This led to yet another Liberal idea. An increase in the exemptions for dependants. Man that is just like giving welfare an increase. Now I don't know if you have to understand anything about sociology to be president, but here is a lesson that I hope candidates one and all grasp. Sing along if you can.
Families have children by what their resources can afford. You think you are picking the number of children, but really science does it for you 95% of the time. The number of children per family produced has dropped in the last 70 years. This has been true since we left agriculture behind as our source of survival. The closer you get to the bottom of the wage earning scale, the more that "careful family planning" has not occurred. The more you make, the less children are an asset and the more they become a liability. A sociological impulse to curb child bearing occurs in the middle class. Then once you get so high up on the earnings scale children become an affordable luxury like a nice car or a trip to the Bahama's. A little further explanation is probably in order.
This is where life gets complicated for an elderly war vet that suffered abuse and possibly some brain damage. It requires math and sociology. If you double the amount of return tax credit to $7,000 per dependant, that is only going really help families at the lowest level of income earner. If you make say $80,000 per year, that extra $3,500 is less the 5% of your income. That is a little more then 2 week's salary for them. This is the range where most people can afford to send a couple of children to college, have a decent house, and keep a healthy debt to earnings ratio. (I say can, not do.) Now if you increase a "dependant" dependant tax by $3,500 to the lowest end of the wage earning bracket, you encourage family growth. That family growth contributes to so many of our social and economical problems that exist today. If you only make $17,000 a year, then a $3,500 per child increase is a more then a 20% (a 41% total) increase in their income. To increase your wealth by a nearly half for every dependant is pretty inspiring. Now, is that going to produce well educated, well adjusted, and functional children? The chances are much worse. Since most children are not really consuming 1/5th, let alone 1/3rd of your net income, then they become an asset at the lower levels. Nice plan buddy, why not just pay children to have more kids. Oh wait, your plan is.
The 18.4 gas tax break for 3 months a year is going to save the average person around, you ready for this, $10 per month. The big "saver" of course will be those driving gas guzzling SUZ 40 miles each way to work and back. They might save up to $40 a month. So who will this break really help? Really big business that consume gas like there is no limited supply. They could save millions. Great economy is going bad, what we need is more tax breaks for the people who can afford to pay their CEO's $10 million per year. Now that is more like it. An idea that looks "giving" and helpful to the masses , but really there to help "the biggest tax payers." So at least he is not completely crossed over here yet.
Here is a great one. Man this guy has been smoking some really good stuff. He is going to offer government backed loan mortgages for those people who were either budgetarily challenged, furturly blind, or just plain not very smart and bought houses that they couldn't afford and are about to loose them. There are companies out there going bankrupt left and right who backed these loans, and he wants the government to jump into the business? Many of these people are about to loose their house because they don't have jobs or they lost their high paying auto factory job and now are Wal-Mart door greeters. How are they going to pay any loan back? Fix that problem. I think having an economy that is already on shaky ground is not the best time to enter a business that is showing to be a big looser for the private sector. I mean why not just open up a government airlines instead. That is going so well. And yet another program that will require money that we don't have. All while maintaining our economic hemorrhage to Iraq. That is again "not very conservative."