New commercial from Hochul attacks Corwin over support of GOP 2012 budget

First fact check -- "$6400 more" -- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/18/barack-o…
How many senior's in Genesee Co will be able to afford an extra $500+ a month?

Mr. Harakal, the fact is your candidate, Republican Jane Corwin has endorsed and supports the Republican Paul Ryan Bdget plan that seeks to end medicare and replace it with a voucher to shop for health insurance, this ill concieved plan that was put up by Republicans and passed with total Republican support and with Republican Jane Corwin stating clearly that she supports the Ryan budget plan to privatized medicare and end medicaid as e know it....Republican Jane Corwin is for privatizing medicare and replacing it with a voucher that will leave seniors at the mercy of private insurance, that is what she said. Hochul, Davis, Murphy don't support he Republican Ryan budget plan to end medicare and replace it with a voucher....voters aren't stupid Mr.Harakal, you can call everyone else in the race liars and claim they are slinging mud but the truth is Republicn Jane Corwin supports replacing medicare with a voucher that will leave seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry. Jane Corwin represents more of the same nonsense from Republicans that drove the economy into a ditch with the same failed economic programs that simply don't work.

thay cant ballance thr budget on the backs of the seniors?it will bankrup a lot of us seniors.we will lose our homes, some can be homeless, will not afford our meds
. thay can find outher places to cut .i can barley afford my meds now

Harakal's statement is a laugh. Ad after ad attacking Kathy Hochul from the minute she announced. How disingenuous is this statement now?

The truth is this issue defines who these two candidates are and who they will go to Washington to represent. Corwin wants to privatize Medicare and give more tax cuts to the wealthy. Hochul wants to protect senior citizen's and ask the highest wage earners to pay their fair share.

Lorie,
What is Hochul's idea of fair share? Back in the 1950's, it was around 90%. Since President Kennedy started the first tax cuts, it's now down into in the 30%'s. If we go back to the rates under Bill Clinton, then should not all rates go back also to be "fair"? If the Bush cuts were wrong, then they should all be repealed, right?

What is the fair share for the middle income people? And why should almost 50% of us not have to pay any income taxes? How is that fair?

John - I do not think that going back to Clinton tax levels for the wealthy will affect their standard of living. When millionaires have to trade in their BMW's then I will feel sorry for them.

Also, check out how billionaire Warren Buffet, who usually floats between being the 2nd-5th wealthiest man on earth and has a net worth of over $50 Billion feels about our current tax system.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

John, the Clinton era was good for me. How about you? And how about those surpluses? That was good for everyone.

Again, I found myself not happy with my own Party. I wasn't happy with the compromise that extended the Bush era cuts to the wealthy. Not happy at all.

And the whole claim that if the rich pay the Clinton era tax rates that the job creation machine will shut down. Well, that dog just don't hunt anymore, because under the Bush cuts they've just decided to keep they're money and hire people from other countries.

<a href="http://s1102.photobucket.com/albums/g441/Lorie_Longhany/?action=view&am…; target="_blank"><img src="http://i1102.photobucket.com/albums/g441/Lorie_Longhany/wealthchart.jpg…; border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Why doesn't the government put a box you can check on your 1040 irs tax form and ask if you wish to send in extra money to pay off the deficit..Just like they do if you want to give to the reelection fund..Then all the liberal Democrats can give extra since they think we need to raise taxes..Lets see how much that raises..Daniel what is stopping Warren Buffet from sending more into the IRS if he feels he isn't tax enough..Same with Obama,the Clintons,Biden,Kerry..no one is stopping them from giving more..

See that red part, John? That's me and you and probably the rest of the poster's on here.

The trickle down theory hasn't worked. It's trickling up and pushing more and more middle class people into poverty.

I support Kathy Hochul because she will represent the 80% on the pie chart that includes me. Jane on the other hand will represent the 1% in the slate gray section.

Lorie,
First, the surplus under Clinton was phony since much of the budget was off line. Second, Clinton did not "balance" anything, the Congress did. They were Republican, but it was still phony. And if the Clinton era rates were good, then why not go back to the Kennedy rates? Wouldn't that be even better?

Dan, if the wealthy go back to Clinton era rates, why not everyone else? Are we looking for fairness, or envy?
Why should almost 50% pay no taxes? Explain to me how that is fair even if the rich pay more.

John, even Ronald Reagan is too liberal for you, He raised taxes 11 times. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030729-503544.html

Obama has cut your taxes but I guess you'd be much happier if your taxes were raised and the uber rich were given another tax break. Welcome to the John-Roach-school-of-vote-against-your-own-self-interest. Damn them poor people not paying their fair share!

John - It's not envy it's fairness. There is no reason why Warren Buffet's secretary should have to pay a higher tax rate then he does. I do not think you can accuse Mr. Buffet of 'class envy'. Most of Clinton's surplus was fueled by the outstanding economic growth that he generated during his Presidency. He fostered an environment of productivity and it paid off. Clinton also vetoed much of what the Republicans wanted to do. He did it in spite of the Republican Congress, not because of it.

Mark - Read the article, Warren Buffet tried to pay the maximum amount without any loopholes and he still ended up paying an income tax rate of only 17%.

Lori,
I love low taxes and I really don't want to pay any more than I do now. But, when I read you say "fair", then what is fair? Only some pay more, or we all pay more. Is it really fairness or envy? It seems more like envy.

Howard,
While you can Google it under "percentage who pay no income taxes", you can also read the Associated Press article dated 4-7-10, by Stephen Ohlemacher or the New York Times on 4-13-10. True, I rounded up to 50%, from about 47% percent.

Daniel he still can just give the treasury money if he so chooses ,anyone can...

Mark - That's not the point. The point is that people in his income bracket have too low of a tax rate. I think that a simplification of the tax code would be helpful but it doesn't solve all of the problem.

Dan,
Most of Buffet's income came from stock dividends, not earned income as most have.

Dividends are taxed lower than regular income and that is one of the changes being talking about. While raising the tax on stock dividends to the earned income tax rate will generate more taxes,it will lessen the advantage of owning stocks and might hurt more than help the economy.

Lorie,
You probably should have fact-checked your fact-checking site.

First fact check -- "$6400 more" is NOT TRUE!

PolitiFact, your fact checking site, first explains how the $6400 figure was arrived at:

"According to the CBO analysis (see page 20 -25), under the Ryan plan, the $8,000 premium support voucher in 2022 would cover 39 percent of the cost of the average private plan for a 65-year-old. Which means the plan actually costs about $20,500 and that beneficiaries would be on the hook for about $12,500 of the cost.

The CBO also presented estimates for an "alternative fiscal scenario" –- which incorporates "several changes to then-current law that were widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period." Under this scenario, the typical beneficiary who enrolled in traditional Medicare would pay about 30 percent of the cost of the average private plan in 2022, or about $6,150. In other words, the increased amount the 65-year-old would have to pay would be about $6,400."

What PolitiFact fails to mention are 2 very important points in the Ryan plan that provide a safety net for low income seniors:

1. The Roadmap would also provide funding for medical savings accounts (MSAs) for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. Congressman Ryan’s staff specified that, for the purpose of CBO’s analysis, the government initially would contribute $6,600 per year to the MSAs of qualifying beneficiaries and that the amount would increase over time with a blend of the CPI-U and CPI-M.

2. The voucher would be adjusted to reflect the age and health status of enrollees; thus, in the initial years of the new program, the average value would be lower to reflect the lower expected costs for health care of individuals who had recently turned age 65.

The CBO estimates that 92% of seniors would qualify as low-income.

Using PolitiFacts own figures, when we include the MSA as part of the benefit amount:

92% of the seniors in 2021 under the Ryan plan would pay $5900

while the average senior in 2021 under the current Medicare plan would pay $6150.

Both points are found on page 21 of the CBO Report. PolitiFact references pages 20-25 in their analysis.

Did they miss the part about the Medical Savings Accounts OR are they not as un-biased and non-partisan as they would lead you to believe?

Again the point is the Republicans and Jane Corwin are supporting a plan to eliminate medicare and leave seniors at the mercy of private insurance for medical coverage, provide more tax breaks for millionaires, billionairs, hedge fund managers and corporations that export American jobs all paid for by middle-class people who work for a living.

Hockey time! Go Sabres!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbjq6OfkMlg&feature=player_embedded