That man is so delusional. It must be nice living in lala land of the "wealthy."

Maybe I'll go visit him there when I need a break from reality.

What is wrong with this man?

Oh, I don't think he's delusional. He knows exactly that he's parroting one of the oldest Republican talking-points here. And he's soo bad at it, too.

I think the only thing the Democrats have to do is comparing this clip so something from, say, 2001:

"You want to know who the wealthy are, Senator? Let's just ask some John McCain from 2001:

(And then a clip from himself denouncing the tax-cuts from Bush because they only favour the wealthy.)

Which not only explains to you, who the wealthy are, Senator - but what a shameless flip-flop is."

In 2000, 2001, and 2003, McCain was one of the people “interested” in talking about “who the, quote, ‘wealthy’ are in America” when he argued against Bush’s tax cuts that “mostly benefit the wealthy“:

“There’s one big difference between me and the others–I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy.” [McCain campaign commercial, January 2000]

“I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.” [McCain Senate floor statement, May 21, 2001]

“But when you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that–as the previous tax cuts–that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans.” [NBC’s “Today,” Jan. 7, 2003]

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/17/mccain-wealthy-taxes/

You guys have it right: The quotes for McCain would indeed make a great follow on for an ad showing this clip. Then I would follow with:

George Bush was a president who almost always wrong and yet never admitted to being wrong. In John McCain we have a man who is afraid to admit he was right.

Yeah, it's those conspiracy nuts who believe in things like UFO landings in Roswell and rich people in America. The guy is a loon.

Yeah, this should make for great debate. Obama talking about CEO pay and corporate profits in comparison to falling wages, McCain insisting that billionaires are just like everybody else.

I am still crossing my fingers for Obama because I firmly believe that he is the one to beat McCain:

OBAMA BEATS MCCAIN

February 20, 2008

In a head-to-head matchup, Obama beat McCain 47 percent to 40 percent. He led McCain among independents, in all age groups except those above 70, and in all regions but the South.

McCain beat Clinton 50 percent to 38 percent in a head-to-head matchup. The Arizona senator led Clinton in all regions of the country, among independents and in all age groups.

"At least for now, these numbers suggest Obama has the potential to build a stronger general election coalition than Clinton," Zogby said. "They also suggest Clinton has a lot of catching up to do."

I am still crossing my fingers for Obama because I firmly believe that he is the one to beat McCain

Statistically, Obama is well equipped to do that:

"Only two U.S. Presidents (James Madison and Benjamin Harrison) have been below average in height, and the taller candidate almost always wins the presidential election." (McGinniss, 1988)

John McCain - 5' 7"
Hillary Clinton - 5' 8"
Barack Obama - 6' 1"

Also, Obama contrasts McCain's age, and physically looks like he could run circles around him.

Er, can someone explain for me what McCain is alluding to? I don't get it.

John McCain - 5' 7" Hillary Clinton - 5' 8"

Hillary Clinton is taller than John McCain?! :)

I'm shorter than all of them though! :( ... much smaller! :(((

Anyone want to vote for a short hippie chick?

oh shit...

I wonder what wealth bracket McCain belongs to, eh?

I don't know what the definition of "wealthy" is except that I'm pretty sure I don't fit it. At least, not in America.

Here is some info from the NYTimes regarding Obama's tax plan. It looks like $150,000/yr. might be one definition.

Mr. Obama’s plan would essentially increase tax rates on the wealthy and some corporations to reduce taxes on lower- and middle-income people. He called for a credit of $500 per person — or $1,000 per family — to offset some payroll taxes. Advisers said the credit would be phased out for income levels exceeding $150,000. The plan also called for extending a mortgage credit to taxpayers who do not itemize, generating about $500 in savings for 10 million people. Finally, by eliminating income taxes for older Americans earning less than $50,000 a year, Mr. Obama said 22 million people would no longer need to file an income tax return. And seven million Americans, he said, would receive a tax cut of about $1,400.

Phasing out taxation for the lower brackets is a good start. if anything, it will reduce the number of IRS agents who process all these taxes only to pay the poor their money again, whats the point of all that filtering?

But if Obama were serious about reforming the tax code he could start by creating a new tax bracket for the top 5% of the population and tax their income at say 60%. He could also implement a stronger estate tax, and a an annual tax on wealth. Luxury taxes on elastic wealth goods like multi-million dollar mc-mansions and luxury boats bought by the very rich might also be good. Of course I doubt any of the candidates would ever dream to go this far.

Just a heads up: The poster frame says "click here to play vido," rather than "video."

You scumbag Socialist-Democrats don't even know who the "wealthy " are. Anyone who makes over 100K a year is considered the wealthy by the way. Hillary and Osama...I mean Obama have you convinced that they are working for you. when was the last time either one of them actually pushed a shopping cart let alone bought their own groceries?? Wake up idiots. Who do you think is paying for all of these wonderful social programs the government is managing? besides, they can't manage themselves! Wake up idiots!

I mean Obama have you convinced that they are working for you. when was the last time either one of them actually pushed a shopping cart let alone bought their own groceries??

Uhhhh, Obama is worth a few hundered thousand dollars and 4 years ago obama was a state senator.

So, he probably last did his own shopping about 4.5 years ago.

Who do you think is paying for all of these wonderful social programs the government is managing? besides, they can't manage themselves! Wake up idiots!

Hmmm, really awake now. Yeah, I think the people that largely pay for the social programs are largely the people that make obscene amounts of money off our troubled economic system.

We aren't talking about people making 100K, we are talking about corporate types. Owners of big business.

You know the guys that have increased their pay 1,000 fold in the last three decades while cutting both their taxes and their employees salaries.

Osama...I mean Obama

fascist wingnut.

Scott, I understand where you are coming from, but that "wake up" shpiel won't play here.

I hate McCain, but feel the need to defend a valid point:

$150,000, adjusted for inflation, current levels of private debt, and stagnant wages, is not nearly as "wealthy" as it once was. In 2008, $150k per year of family income is solid middle class. Two nice cars, nice home, healthy 401k. This is not wealth in the sense of $40,000 dinner parties or $2M boats.

I'm not saying that a person making $150,000 is a sob story- compared to a single mom working the graveyard shift at a local grocery store this is the good life. However, these aren't the "wealthy" in "the wealthy in America are destroying this country" Those folks have real money- old money.

If you want to start affecting the true criminals, you need a higher tax rate, AND, a MUCH higher cap. At least 7-digits.

This is why folk like me skew Ron-Paul-Right. We are not nearly as wealthy as some people believe we are. We certainly aren't the old money causing all the trouble around here.

If you want to tax the rich to feed the poor, fine. But tax the rich, not the middle class.

We're not really so different at all- I want my family to have a nice home, good education, and quality healthcare. I just expect this to be MY responsibility, just as it once was my father's, and before that my grandfather's.

If you want to rob the rich to make my life easier, go for it. If you want to take my income to pay for these things, the net result will be another generation (my children) spending their late 20's paying off credit cards and student loans because their parents couldn't quite afford to send them to college.

Ugh- I can't believe I am defending McCain. This man is a dangerous lunatic. Even so, personal responsibility is not without its merit.

$150,000, adjusted for inflation, current levels of private debt, and stagnant wages, is not nearly as "wealthy" as it once was.

It's a graduated tax. and we are just talking about restoring 2000 tax levels.

150K might be middle class, but I think it is also well more then twice the median income.

RedSeven:

Lots of inflation in these past 8 years. Also, according to the graduated tax, a family income of $150,000 is taxed at 28%- only 7% less than a family earning $357k+

It's a WORLD of difference between $150k and $350k per year.

I also think it is outrageous that a family making $17k per year should be taxed at 15%- these are the same folks who NEED the service in the first place. We are essentially taxing them to give it back, less bureaucracy costs. Why?

IMO: the median income of our nation is COMPLETELY out-of-whack with the current cost of living.

It is my belief that more disposable income in the hands of the middle class would help to alleviate this.

In all fairness, so would eliminating some of our highest expenses; medical and education being high on the list. Of course, this begs the question: who gonna pay?

Good visual:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USincometax_2008.svg

See how the line "flattens out" once you pass $150k of family income?

I think we should see an exponential curve at the end instead.

Or- go with the Ron Paul method of eliminating 90% of the government and killing the IRS.

IMO: either extreme is "more fair" than the current scheme.

"It's a WORLD of difference between $150k and $350k per year."

It's a bigger WORLD of difference between $150,000 (notice I don't use "k") and $20,000 per year. And I don't even make that much.

In all fairness, so would eliminating some of our highest expenses; medical and education being high on the list. Of course, this begs the question: who gonna pay?

Basicly since Reagan, big companies have been writing their own loopholes. Now the very wealthy and the high profit corporations pay very little.

We need to close those loopholes if we are going to afford to do much of anything.

No doubt 100K folks are paying their share already. But, I doubt they will be excessively burdened by restoring their 2000 era tax rate.