Barack wants your money

[SkinBasket]

So he can "spread it around." You know, like butter. That's his "economic plan."

Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around'

FOXNews.com
Monday, October 13, 2008

Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to "spread the wealth around" -- a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a "socialist" at the Republican's rallies.

Obama made the remark after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked.

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Obama frequently rails against what he calls a Republican concept that tax breaks for the wealthy will somehow "trickle down" to middle-class Americans.

Obama says he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

[SkinBasket]

So It's not that he wants to punish people for their success... He's an unwilling socialist.

[LL2]

So he can "spread it around." You know, like butter. That's his "economic plan."

Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around'

FOXNews.com
Monday, October 13, 2008


"I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded.


Obama is an idiot. Giving the person behind you a chance at success doesn’t translate into “spreading wealth.” It means the person is going to either replace the person in front or take business away from the person in front.

[HowardRoark]

The saddest part of this is that the majority of his audience has no idea what the term "Socialist" even means.

[Joemailman]

I know what it means:

http://www.dbrl.org/outreach/movingahead/images/title.gif

[hoosier]

The saddest part of this is that the majority of his audience has no idea what the term "Socialist" even means.

Do you know what socialism means, Howie? How do you explain the fact that you (along with the rest of the wing nuts) continually conflate socialism and capitalism?

[HowardRoark]

The saddest part of this is that the majority of his audience has no idea what the term "Socialist" even means.

Do you know what socialism means, Howie? How do you explain the fact that you (along with the rest of the wing nuts) continually conflate socialism and capitalism?

Examples of my nuttiness and conflation please. Much appreciated.

[hoosier]

The saddest part of this is that the majority of his audience has no idea what the term "Socialist" even means.

Do you know what socialism means, Howie? How do you explain the fact that you (along with the rest of the wing nuts) continually conflate socialism and capitalism?

Examples of my nuttiness and conflation please. Much appreciated.

Conflation: you imply that Obama, or any other liberal politician, is espousing socialism. You ignore that what they're really espousing is capitalism with a little more government intervention than you would like. But that doesn't make it socialism. Not even close.

Nuttiness: you attach extreme labels to centrist policies and politicians you disagree with. If the center appears extreme to you, it must be because you're...out there on the wing wid da nuts.

[HowardRoark]

The saddest part of this is that the majority of his audience has no idea what the term "Socialist" even means.

Do you know what socialism means, Howie? How do you explain the fact that you (along with the rest of the wing nuts) continually conflate socialism and capitalism?

Examples of my nuttiness and conflation please. Much appreciated.

Conflation: you imply that Obama, or any other liberal politician, is espousing socialism. You ignore that what they're really espousing is capitalism with a little more government intervention than you would like. But that doesn't make it socialism. Not even close.

Nuttiness: you attach extreme labels to centrist policies and politicians you disagree with. If the center appears extreme to you, it must be because you're...out there on the wing wid da nuts.

I happen to disagree with you. You rarely, if ever, back up your arguments with even a whisper of facts. You seem to reflexively turn to the ad hominem attack.

When he talks about a plumber having to “spread his wealth around a little” in order to help those “behind you can have a chance for success too,” that is not merely a “little more government interventions than I like”…..that is an economic/political philosophy. He knows what he is doing; he is trying to fan the flames of a proletarian revolution. I have never once heard Obama talk about the need for the businessperson, small or big, as an engine of economic prosperity in our society. He always goes right back to his core beliefs that taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor is the preferred model. For what it’s worth, I am OK with the guy having that belief. I just wish he would me more forthright. Although now that he has a lead and the cover of bad economic news, he is letting his true colors come through more. As I said though, it doesn’t matter, because most of his audience doesn’t know the history of Socialism. I think that’s a fair statement on my part. And it’s not meant to be an ad hominem attack

Again, examples of my attaching extreme labels would be appreciated. .

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What is amazing is how the story is reported. No bias in the Fox story. :roll:

From ABC:


Do you believe in the American dream?” a local plumber asked.

Obama said he did.

"I'm being taxed more and more for fulfilling the American dream,” the man said, in comments interpreted by reporters as a reference to the Democrat's proposal to increase income taxes on those making $200,000 or more a year.

Obama recited his now-familiar talking points about 95 percent of the American people would get a tax cut under his plan.

The plumber did not seem convinced.

I highly doubt that Obama didn't answer his question without going into the standard 95%..yet Fox leaves that out.

[HowardRoark]

What is amazing is how the story is reported. No bias in the Fox story. :roll:

From ABC:


Do you believe in the American dream?” a local plumber asked.

Obama said he did.

"I'm being taxed more and more for fulfilling the American dream,” the man said, in comments interpreted by reporters as a reference to the Democrat's proposal to increase income taxes on those making $200,000 or more a year.

Obama recited his now-familiar talking points about 95 percent of the American people would get a tax cut under his plan.

The plumber did not seem convinced.

I highly doubt that Obama didn't answer his question without going into the standard 95%..yet Fox leaves that out.

What's your point Ty? The poor plumber works his ass off to better his life, and Obama beliefs he should now spread some of his rewards to others.
The plumber doesn't like that. Pretty simple.

[hoosier]

The saddest part of this is that the majority of his audience has no idea what the term "Socialist" even means.

Do you know what socialism means, Howie? How do you explain the fact that you (along with the rest of the wing nuts) continually conflate socialism and capitalism?

Examples of my nuttiness and conflation please. Much appreciated.

Conflation: you imply that Obama, or any other liberal politician, is espousing socialism. You ignore that what they're really espousing is capitalism with a little more government intervention than you would like. But that doesn't make it socialism. Not even close.

Nuttiness: you attach extreme labels to centrist policies and politicians you disagree with. If the center appears extreme to you, it must be because you're...out there on the wing wid da nuts.

I happen to disagree with you. You rarely, if ever, back up your arguments with even a whisper of facts. You seem to reflexively turn to the ad hominem attack.

When he talks about a plumber having to “spread his wealth around a little” in order to help those “behind you can have a chance for success too,” that is not merely a “little more government interventions than I like”…..that is an economic/political philosophy. He knows what he is doing; he is trying to fan the flames of a proletarian revolution. I have never once heard Obama talk about the need for the businessperson, small or big, as an engine of economic prosperity in our society. He always goes right back to his core beliefs that taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor is the preferred model. For what it’s worth, I am OK with the guy having that belief. I just wish he would me more forthright. Although now that he has a lead and the cover of bad economic news, he is letting his true colors come through more. As I said though, it doesn’t matter, because most of his audience doesn’t know the history of Socialism. I think that’s a fair statement on my part. And it’s not meant to be an ad homminen attack

Again, examples of my attaching extreme labels would be appreciated. .

Ok, I'll do my best to make the point using a clear example. When Obama speaks of "spreading the wealth" he's alluding to his plan to give tax breaks to those earning less than $250K/year, while those who make more won't receive the same breaks. Call it a more progressive form of capitalism than the brand favored by Bush and McCain. But socialism it is not. Socialism is when the government appropriates the means of production (the factories, etc.), like when Allende seized ITT copper mines in Chile in 1971 or like what Chavez and Morales have threatened to do more recently with US and TNC-owned natural resources in Venezuela and Bolivia. If Obama was a socialist he'd be scheming to seize the plumber's business.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What is amazing is how the story is reported. No bias in the Fox story. :roll:

From ABC:


Do you believe in the American dream?” a local plumber asked.

Obama said he did.

"I'm being taxed more and more for fulfilling the American dream,” the man said, in comments interpreted by reporters as a reference to the Democrat's proposal to increase income taxes on those making $200,000 or more a year.

Obama recited his now-familiar talking points about 95 percent of the American people would get a tax cut under his plan.

The plumber did not seem convinced.

I highly doubt that Obama didn't answer his question without going into the standard 95%..yet Fox leaves that out.

What's your point Ty? The poor plumber works his ass off to better his life, and Obama beliefs he should now spread some of his rewards to others.
The plumber doesn't like that. Pretty simple.

The point is that Obama would reduce his taxes unless he is above 250K.

Obama hardly said "i'm going to tax you and take your money to help others."

The point is that even the paragraph supplied is being twisted.

Lastly, the man didn't seem convinced. What was he not convinced of...that 95% would get the tax cut?

But, what else is new from Fox.

[HowardRoark]

The point is that Obama would reduce his taxes unless he is above 250K.

So where is the incentive? Altruism for fixing leaky faucets?

[hoosier]

The point is that Obama would reduce his taxes unless he is above 250K.

So where is the incentive? Altruism for fixing leaky faucets?

Who is neglecting to include facts now? Hint: exactly what tax structure is Obama proposing for those who make over 250K? Will it mean that every penny earned over 250 goes to the government? That's certainly what you're implying, but is that factual?

[bobblehead]

The saddest part of this is that the majority of his audience has no idea what the term "Socialist" even means.

Do you know what socialism means, Howie? How do you explain the fact that you (along with the rest of the wing nuts) continually conflate socialism and capitalism?

the problem with liberals is that they think there is a 'set' amount of wealth and that wealth isn't actually created....if the plumber has a lot of wealth some little guy has none so it must be "spread" around. Newsflash...wealth is created, not some set amount that doesn't change throughout history.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The point is that Obama would reduce his taxes unless he is above 250K.

So where is the incentive? Altruism for fixing leaky faucets?

You are so right. I forgot the part of the Obama plan that states every dollar earned after 250k will be given to the poor.

I beg your forgiveness.

[HowardRoark]

The point is that Obama would reduce his taxes unless he is above 250K.

So where is the incentive? Altruism for fixing leaky faucets?

Who is neglecting to include facts now? Hint: exactly what tax structure is Obama proposing for those who make over 250K? Will it mean that every penny earned over 250 goes to the government? That's certainly what you're implying, but is that factual?

I certainly was NOT implying that all the pennies go to taxes, that’s quite a jump on your part General.

Over $250,000 not only do the income taxes go up, but the Social Security taxes kick back in too. For a self employed plumber, the number is double (12.4%). Pretty soon these numbers are significant enough to become less than motivating to make that incremental dollar.

How many pennies out of a dollar for that person making over $250,000/year will keep him fixing toilets instead of going to Mexico a few more weeks each winter? How many?

For me, it is a motivator to get to $102,000 as quickly as I can every year. that's another 6.2% in take home pay every paycheck. That can add up to a lot of beer. It is motivating.

[bobblehead]

The saddest part of this is that the majority of his audience has no idea what the term "Socialist" even means.

Do you know what socialism means, Howie? How do you explain the fact that you (along with the rest of the wing nuts) continually conflate socialism and capitalism?

Examples of my nuttiness and conflation please. Much appreciated.

Conflation: you imply that Obama, or any other liberal politician, is espousing socialism. You ignore that what they're really espousing is capitalism with a little more government intervention than you would like. But that doesn't make it socialism. Not even close.

Nuttiness: you attach extreme labels to centrist policies and politicians you disagree with. If the center appears extreme to you, it must be because you're...out there on the wing wid da nuts.

I happen to disagree with you. You rarely, if ever, back up your arguments with even a whisper of facts. You seem to reflexively turn to the ad hominem attack.

When he talks about a plumber having to “spread his wealth around a little” in order to help those “behind you can have a chance for success too,” that is not merely a “little more government interventions than I like”…..that is an economic/political philosophy. He knows what he is doing; he is trying to fan the flames of a proletarian revolution. I have never once heard Obama talk about the need for the businessperson, small or big, as an engine of economic prosperity in our society. He always goes right back to his core beliefs that taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor is the preferred model. For what it’s worth, I am OK with the guy having that belief. I just wish he would me more forthright. Although now that he has a lead and the cover of bad economic news, he is letting his true colors come through more. As I said though, it doesn’t matter, because most of his audience doesn’t know the history of Socialism. I think that’s a fair statement on my part. And it’s not meant to be an ad homminen attack

Again, examples of my attaching extreme labels would be appreciated. .

Ok, I'll do my best to make the point using a clear example. When Obama speaks of "spreading the wealth" he's alluding to his plan to give tax breaks to those earning less than $250K/year, while those who make more won't receive the same breaks. Call it a more progressive form of capitalism than the brand favored by Bush and McCain. But socialism it is not. Socialism is when the government appropriates the means of production (the factories, etc.), like when Allende seized ITT copper mines in Chile in 1971 or like what Chavez and Morales have threatened to do more recently with US and TNC-owned natural resources in Venezuela and Bolivia. If Obama was a socialist he'd be scheming to seize the plumber's business.

instead the plumber keeps the business and keeps working, but merely has his assets seized....he becomes an employee of obama effectively...sounds like seizing the business to me.

[MJZiggy]

He's not taxing the business, he's taxing the personal income--and it's a tax. He's not seizing anything.

[SkinBasket]

He's not taxing the business, he's taxing the personal income--and it's a tax. He's not seizing anything.

Of course it's a tax. He has representation after all....

[bobblehead]

He's not taxing the business, he's taxing the personal income--and it's a tax. He's not seizing anything.

same difference..whre did the income come from...his business. Every time this guy fixes a faucet he has to decide if its worth his time...likely he stops for the year at 249k and you bitch that he won't come fix your faucet and you have to hire the "less fortunate" plumber who always does a shitty job.

[Scott Campbell]

Ok, I'll do my best to make the point using a clear example. When Obama speaks of "spreading the wealth" he's alluding to his plan to give tax breaks to those earning less than $250K/year, while those who make more won't receive the same breaks.



Classic divide and conquer strategy, with $250K being the dividing line.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ok, I'll do my best to make the point using a clear example. When Obama speaks of "spreading the wealth" he's alluding to his plan to give tax breaks to those earning less than $250K/year, while those who make more won't receive the same breaks.



Classic divide and conquer strategy, with $250K being the dividing line.

Yeah..dividing 95% of america from 5%. :roll:

[Scott Campbell]

He's not taxing the business, he's taxing the personal income--and it's a tax. He's not seizing anything.



Huh? Taxes are not voluntary. Payroll deductions are not voluntary.

Funny how it's never called stealing unless it's coming out of your own pocket.

[texaspackerbacker]

It sounds like some in here are not aware that the great majority of small businesses are taxed as individuals--sole proprietorships and partnerships. Thus, Obama's redistribution scheme in the form of tax increases, even if it is over $250,000, will have a severe dampening effect on the economy, particularly on the sector that creates far and away the most new jobs.

And even if you're talking about tax increases on corporations, small or large, any tax increase merely becomes a cost which is passed on to consumers--harming the people Obama claims to be helping.

In addition to all of that, elevating the already high American tax on business, corporate and otherwise, serves to put American business in a worst competitive position with foreign businesses. That may not seem like a negative to Obamaphiles who hate American business--and America in general--anyway, but it is another severe negative factor in the flight of jobs overseas.

[MadScientist]

The saddest part of this is that the majority of his audience has no idea what the term "Socialist" even means.

Do you know what socialism means, Howie? How do you explain the fact that you (along with the rest of the wing nuts) continually conflate socialism and capitalism?

the problem with liberals is that they think there is a 'set' amount of wealth and that wealth isn't actually created....if the plumber has a lot of wealth some little guy has none so it must be "spread" around. Newsflash...wealth is created, not some set amount that doesn't change throughout history.

Conservatives seem to forget that a critical component in the creation of wealth is the velocity of the money - the number of times it changes hands. By skimming a bit off the top earners, who would otherwise save it or put it into generic investments, and putting it in the hands of people who will spend it, the velocity of money is increased, increasing the total wealth. And with the numbers we are talking, the rich, as a whole, should do just as well, if not better than before.

And don't bother posting a strawman, I'm not advocating jacking the marginal rates on the high end up to some ridiculous level that could have a negative impact on this.

[Scott Campbell]

In addition to all of that, elevating the already high American tax on business, corporate and otherwise, serves to put American business in a worst competitive position with foreign businesses.



Or they incorporate in Bermuda, to avoid the tax schemes altogether.


I've always said if these underachievers put half the effort into moving into the $250K tax bracket as they do trying to steal from it, we'd all be wealthy.

[texaspackerbacker]

The saddest part of this is that the majority of his audience has no idea what the term "Socialist" even means.

Do you know what socialism means, Howie? How do you explain the fact that you (along with the rest of the wing nuts) continually conflate socialism and capitalism?

the problem with liberals is that they think there is a 'set' amount of wealth and that wealth isn't actually created....if the plumber has a lot of wealth some little guy has none so it must be "spread" around. Newsflash...wealth is created, not some set amount that doesn't change throughout history.

Conservatives seem to forget that a critical component in the creation of wealth is the velocity of the money - the number of times it changes hands. By skimming a bit off the top earners, who would otherwise save it or put it into generic investments, and putting it in the hands of people who will spend it, the velocity of money is increased, increasing the total wealth. And with the numbers we are talking, the rich, as a whole, should do just as well, if not better than before.

And don't bother posting a strawman, I'm not advocating jacking the marginal rates on the high end up to some ridiculous level that could have a negative impact on this.

The flaw in what you say, MadScientist, is that the great majority of these top earners are NOT retired fat cats or spoiled trust fund brats or whatever bogus image of the rich you are trying to palm off. Rather, most of them are small business owners--entrepreneurs who generally will NOT slow down the velocity of money as you describe, but maximize that velocity by investing in their own business--increases in employees, equipment, and inventory. THAT is what the socialist, Obama either SEEKS to disrupt or ignorantly would disrupt as a consequence of his programs and policies.

[MadScientist]

The flaw in what you say, MadScientist, is that the great majority of these top earners are NOT retired fat cats or spoiled trust fund brats or whatever bogus image of the rich you are trying to palm off. Rather, most of them are small business owners--entrepreneurs who generally will NOT slow down the velocity of money as you describe, but maximize that velocity by investing in their own business--increases in employees, equipment, and inventory. THAT is what the socialist, Obama either SEEKS to disrupt or ignorantly would disrupt as a consequence of his programs and policies.

If they are investing in their business, then it is a business expense that isn't taxed. The tax is on net, not gross, so your argument is totally invalid, as usual.

[bobblehead]

The saddest part of this is that the majority of his audience has no idea what the term "Socialist" even means.

Do you know what socialism means, Howie? How do you explain the fact that you (along with the rest of the wing nuts) continually conflate socialism and capitalism?

the problem with liberals is that they think there is a 'set' amount of wealth and that wealth isn't actually created....if the plumber has a lot of wealth some little guy has none so it must be "spread" around. Newsflash...wealth is created, not some set amount that doesn't change throughout history.

Conservatives seem to forget that a critical component in the creation of wealth is the velocity of the money - the number of times it changes hands. By skimming a bit off the top earners, who would otherwise save it or put it into generic investments, and putting it in the hands of people who will spend it, the velocity of money is increased, increasing the total wealth. And with the numbers we are talking, the rich, as a whole, should do just as well, if not better than before.

And don't bother posting a strawman, I'm not advocating jacking the marginal rates on the high end up to some ridiculous level that could have a negative impact on this.

ok tex....devalue the dollar some more.

hell I'll add more to it I was going to stop there. Giving money to someone who spends it so the guys who earned it can earn it back again is not creating wealth. The guys who create wealth are the top end dudes who put capital together in projects...taking that capital away from them and giving it to spenders does not create wealth. They use the capital to lessen the cost of goods thus helping the lower class indirectly...while creating wealth.

[bobblehead]

The flaw in what you say, MadScientist, is that the great majority of these top earners are NOT retired fat cats or spoiled trust fund brats or whatever bogus image of the rich you are trying to palm off. Rather, most of them are small business owners--entrepreneurs who generally will NOT slow down the velocity of money as you describe, but maximize that velocity by investing in their own business--increases in employees, equipment, and inventory. THAT is what the socialist, Obama either SEEKS to disrupt or ignorantly would disrupt as a consequence of his programs and policies.

If they are investing in their business, then it is a business expense that isn't taxed. The tax is on net, not gross, so your argument is totally invalid, as usual.

sorry...did they change gaap to allow first year full expensing while I am in thailand....wooohooo.

[HowardRoark]

Apropos of this thread….a few good nuggets in this article:

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/10/our_everyone_gets_a_trophy_eco.htm

……When it comes to taxes in general, Barack Obama has made it plain that he would raise the tax rate on the highest earners, while John McCain comforts his supporters with a promise that he would penalize the earnings of the rich at a lower rate. Both candidates miss the disincentivizing nature of taxation.

Realistically, taxes should be seen as a price or a penalty against effort. This is important because no matter how many times politicians tell us they’ll stimulate the economy through income redistribution, the fact remains that economic growth is always and everywhere a function of productive work effort.

Or, as Andrew Mellon (Treasury secretary under presidents Harding, Coolidge and Hoover) noted in Taxation: The People’s Business: “when a man’s initiative is crippled by legislation or by a tax system which denies him the right to receive a reasonable share of his earnings, then he will no longer exert himself and the country will be deprived of the energy on which its continued greatness depends.”

Both Obama and McCain miss Mellon’s point because in quibbling over the correct rate for the most productive taxpayers, they’re advocating that success should be penalized at a higher rate than lack of success. That the vital, productive few create enormous opportunities for every American seems to concern neither.

[LL2]

The flaw in what you say, MadScientist, is that the great majority of these top earners are NOT retired fat cats or spoiled trust fund brats or whatever bogus image of the rich you are trying to palm off. Rather, most of them are small business owners--entrepreneurs who generally will NOT slow down the velocity of money as you describe, but maximize that velocity by investing in their own business--increases in employees, equipment, and inventory. THAT is what the socialist, Obama either SEEKS to disrupt or ignorantly would disrupt as a consequence of his programs and policies.

If they are investing in their business, then it is a business expense that isn't taxed. The tax is on net, not gross, so your argument is totally invalid, as usual.

sorry...did they change gaap to allow first year full expensing while I am in thailand....wooohooo.

No...you still have to do the depreciation over X number of years depending on the "investment."

[bobblehead]

The flaw in what you say, MadScientist, is that the great majority of these top earners are NOT retired fat cats or spoiled trust fund brats or whatever bogus image of the rich you are trying to palm off. Rather, most of them are small business owners--entrepreneurs who generally will NOT slow down the velocity of money as you describe, but maximize that velocity by investing in their own business--increases in employees, equipment, and inventory. THAT is what the socialist, Obama either SEEKS to disrupt or ignorantly would disrupt as a consequence of his programs and policies.

If they are investing in their business, then it is a business expense that isn't taxed. The tax is on net, not gross, so your argument is totally invalid, as usual.

sorry...did they change gaap to allow first year full expensing while I am in thailand....wooohooo.

No...you still have to do the depreciation over X number of years depending on the "investment."

Oh, so his point was completly wrong is what you are saying.

[MadScientist]

Apropos of this thread….a few good nuggets in this article:

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/10/our_everyone_gets_a_trophy_eco.htm

……When it comes to taxes in general, Barack Obama has made it plain that he would raise the tax rate on the highest earners, while John McCain comforts his supporters with a promise that he would penalize the earnings of the rich at a lower rate. Both candidates miss the disincentivizing nature of taxation.

Realistically, taxes should be seen as a price or a penalty against effort. This is important because no matter how many times politicians tell us they’ll stimulate the economy through income redistribution, the fact remains that economic growth is always and everywhere a function of productive work effort.

Or, as Andrew Mellon (Treasury secretary under presidents Harding, Coolidge and Hoover) noted in Taxation: The People’s Business: “when a man’s initiative is crippled by legislation or by a tax system which denies him the right to receive a reasonable share of his earnings, then he will no longer exert himself and the country will be deprived of the energy on which its continued greatness depends.”

Both Obama and McCain miss Mellon’s point because in quibbling over the correct rate for the most productive taxpayers, they’re advocating that success should be penalized at a higher rate than lack of success. That the vital, productive few create enormous opportunities for every American seems to concern neither.
Good idea to quote Hoover's treasury secretary for relevancy in a time of economic crisis :roll:

Even if you buy into the concept of marginal rates impacting the desire to earn more, the rates in the early 20's were something like 70%. Do you really think there is that much difference in motivation for a person who pulls in $1 million weather he keeps $64000 or $50000 of his next $10000. I flat out dispute your assumptions with the rates we are talking about.

As for penalizing success, where does this success come from? The success of the rich is dependent on the success of the country as a whole. So what they pay is the price of doing business in the US. Its the cost of keeping the conditions that allow for their successes in tact. By putting your blinders on and looking at this only as a fairness for the rich issue, you are seriously missing the big picture. You are trying to set the US up to fail like the levees in NO, and lead the economy to collapse like the bridge in MN.

[HowardRoark]

By putting your blinders on and looking at this only as a fairness for the rich issue, you are seriously missing the big picture.

Funny, that's exactly what I believe too, only the opposite of how you do. Obama never brings up economics, only "fairness." I see it not as a fair issue at all. I see it as a system that will raise all ships. I think the guy who makes $2 million a year, but employs 60 people is more important than that same guy paying a "fair" amount of taxes that keeps half those 60 out of work, but giving them somekind of bogus tax credit.

BTW, prosperity is right around the corner.........

[mraynrand]

Do you really think there is that much difference in motivation for a person who pulls in $1 million weather he keeps $64000 or $50000 of his next $10000. I flat out dispute your assumptions with the rates we are talking about.


Seems to me a problem often is that Libs aren't very good at math.

incentive to work longer hours at diminished returns is only a part of the issue. Taxation on productivity, and it's effects is a huge issue. In crease taxes on businesses and you change the ball game. Businesses will look to save money by 1) cutting jobs, 2) Increasing prices, 3) moving business to areas with lower taxes. This is what businesses do. Why? Because they are trying to stay competitive. Som when Obama says he wants higher taxes on businesses (and doesn't even understand the Laffer curve - and when told how it works STILL wants to tax higher 'because it's fair') AND AT THE SAME TIME want to 'keep businesses here' by preventing any tax breaks on foreign stationed businesses, he is killing business from both ends. If he wants businesses to remain, you have to keep takes lower so that businesses can remain competitive.

[HowardRoark]

And another thing......my Dad always told me when I was a kid that life wasn't fair. I think maybe we need someone like him running for President. No trophies for everyone. Put a video on you-tube.....who cares, doesn't make you Steven frickin Spielberg. Life ain't fair.

[MadScientist]

And another thing......my Dad always told me when I was a kid that life wasn't fair. I think maybe we need someone like him running for President. No trophies for everyone. Put a video on you-tube.....who cares, doesn't make you Steven frickin Spielberg. Life ain't fair.
So stop bitching about the taxes being raised on the rich.

[MadScientist]

By putting your blinders on and looking at this only as a fairness for the rich issue, you are seriously missing the big picture.

Funny, that's exactly what I believe too, only the opposite of how you do. Obama never brings up economics, only "fairness." I see it not as a fair issue at all. I see it as a system that will raise all ships. I think the guy who makes $2 million a year, but employs 60 people is more important than that same guy paying a "fair" amount of taxes that keeps half those 60 out of work, but giving them somekind of bogus tax credit.

BTW, prosperity is right around the corner.........
The counter argument is that when that guy pays the 'fair' amount of taxes that you deride, there is more money being spent by consumers, so there is enough demand for the guy to employ 90 people. So the guy still makes as much, if not more than before, but more people are working. Getting money in the hands of consumers is a more effective way to raise all ships.

[MadScientist]

Do you really think there is that much difference in motivation for a person who pulls in $1 million weather he keeps $64000 or $50000 of his next $10000. I flat out dispute your assumptions with the rates we are talking about.


Seems to me a problem often is that Libs aren't very good at math.

incentive to work longer hours at diminished returns is only a part of the issue. Taxation on productivity, and it's effects is a huge issue. In crease taxes on businesses and you change the ball game. Businesses will look to save money by 1) cutting jobs, 2) Increasing prices, 3) moving business to areas with lower taxes. This is what businesses do. Why? Because they are trying to stay competitive. Som when Obama says he wants higher taxes on businesses (and doesn't even understand the Laffer curve - and when told how it works STILL wants to tax higher 'because it's fair') AND AT THE SAME TIME want to 'keep businesses here' by preventing any tax breaks on foreign stationed businesses, he is killing business from both ends. If he wants businesses to remain, you have to keep takes lower so that businesses can remain competitive.
If you are going to comment on a typo, you shouldn't make them yourself.

If the tax situation (loopholes closed) is changed so there is no advantage to moving, then it doesn't matter if taxes are raised because the companies won't move. As for the options for keeping profits up, you missed the option of increasing sales. By focusing on increasing consumption, profits can be maintained or increased, even with a tax increase.

[texaspackerbacker]

The flaw in what you say, MadScientist, is that the great majority of these top earners are NOT retired fat cats or spoiled trust fund brats or whatever bogus image of the rich you are trying to palm off. Rather, most of them are small business owners--entrepreneurs who generally will NOT slow down the velocity of money as you describe, but maximize that velocity by investing in their own business--increases in employees, equipment, and inventory. THAT is what the socialist, Obama either SEEKS to disrupt or ignorantly would disrupt as a consequence of his programs and policies.

If they are investing in their business, then it is a business expense that isn't taxed. The tax is on net, not gross, so your argument is totally invalid, as usual.

I've come to have a bit of respect for your ability to reason, MS--even leftist that you are. But this isn't even close to your usual standard.

As you said yourself, it's all about "velocity of money"--and my old favorite, the Keynesian Multiplier. The pittance of tax savings is irrelevant compared to the beneficial effect of the investing in the form of job creation, geometrically greater total income for many individuals, secondary, tertiary, etc. consumption, investment, etc.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Som when Obama says he wants higher taxes on businesses (and doesn't even understand the Laffer curve - and when told how it works STILL wants to tax higher 'because it's fair') AND AT THE SAME TIME want to 'keep businesses here' by preventing any tax breaks on foreign stationed businesses, he is killing business from both ends. If he wants businesses to remain, you have to keep takes lower so that businesses can remain competitive.

I love how you present the laffer curve as if it is gravity. There are plenty of economists that deride and ridicule it. The U.S. treasury put out their study showing that government revenue decreased because of Kemp/roth tax cut.

The CBO put out a study as well that casts severe doubt on the benefits of a tax cut.

Of course, the laffer will have its supporters. I'm not advocating one way or the other...but, please, stop with presenting it as sound economics that everyone should buy into.

As for Tyrone, i find it troubling you would use a concept invented by a muslim. America doesn't need any of that type of stuff.

[mraynrand]

Do you really think there is that much difference in motivation for a person who pulls in $1 million weather he keeps $64000 or $50000 of his next $10000. I flat out dispute your assumptions with the rates we are talking about.


Seems to me a problem often is that Libs aren't very good at math.

incentive to work longer hours at diminished returns is only a part of the issue. Taxation on productivity, and it's effects is a huge issue. In crease taxes on businesses and you change the ball game. Businesses will look to save money by 1) cutting jobs, 2) Increasing prices, 3) moving business to areas with lower taxes. This is what businesses do. Why? Because they are trying to stay competitive. Som when Obama says he wants higher taxes on businesses (and doesn't even understand the Laffer curve - and when told how it works STILL wants to tax higher 'because it's fair') AND AT THE SAME TIME want to 'keep businesses here' by preventing any tax breaks on foreign stationed businesses, he is killing business from both ends. If he wants businesses to remain, you have to keep takes lower so that businesses can remain competitive.
If you are going to comment on a typo, you shouldn't make them yourself.

If the tax situation (loopholes closed) is changed so there is no advantage to moving, then it doesn't matter if taxes are raised because the companies won't move. As for the options for keeping profits up, you missed the option of increasing sales. By focusing on increasing consumption, profits can be maintained or increased, even with a tax increase.


Companies will move if it more advantageous to move. Fine, close the loopholes. They will still move if it's cheaper to make shit overseas because of high taxes. Just like businesses flee states with punishing tax structures and oppressive unions, like Ohio and Michigan.
Sales always increase when you have to raise prices due to increased taxes. Right.

[mraynrand]

The CBO put out a study as well that casts severe doubt on the benefits of a tax cut.

.
I've demonstrated several times already why that study you cite is totally misleading, and I'm tired of it. All four times taxes have been reduced - Collidge, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush, tax revenues have increased. GDP also went up dramatically, making it look as though, in some cases, tax receipts as easured against GDP went down, but that's a dodge. Kennedy understood the value of supporting business. He also believed that you should "Ask not what your contry can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country." It's stunning to see lefties like you so far from that ideal.

[mraynrand]

Som when Obama says he wants higher taxes on businesses (and doesn't even understand the Laffer curve - and when told how it works STILL wants to tax higher 'because it's fair') AND AT THE SAME TIME want to 'keep businesses here' by preventing any tax breaks on foreign stationed businesses, he is killing business from both ends. If he wants businesses to remain, you have to keep takes lower so that businesses can remain competitive.

I love how you present the laffer curve as if it is gravity. There are plenty of economists that deride and ridicule it. The U.S. treasury put out their study showing that government revenue decreased because of Kemp/roth tax cut.

The CBO put out a study as well that casts severe doubt on the benefits of a tax cut.

Of course, the laffer will have its supporters. I'm not advocating one way or the other...but, please, stop with presenting it as sound economics that everyone should buy into.

As for Tyrone, i find it troubling you would use a concept invented by a muslim. America doesn't need any of that type of stuff.

Muslims have contributed a lot. It's too bad they've been sold out historically by failed philosophers who essentially aborted scientific progress throughout their history. Fortunately, Christianity actually supported scientific progress in a way unknown to Muslims.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The CBO put out a study as well that casts severe doubt on the benefits of a tax cut.

.
I've demonstrated several times already why that study you cite is totally misleading, and I'm tired of it. All four times taxes have been reduced - Collidge, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush, tax revenues have increased. GDP also went up dramatically, making it look as though, in some cases, tax receipts as easured against GDP went down, but that's a dodge. Kennedy understood the value of supporting business. He also believed that you should "Ask not what your contry can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country." It's stunning to see lefties like you so far from that ideal.

Of course you are. You are right, and we are wrong.

There is no valid criticism of the laffer curve, i apologize. :roll:

[MadScientist]

The flaw in what you say, MadScientist, is that the great majority of these top earners are NOT retired fat cats or spoiled trust fund brats or whatever bogus image of the rich you are trying to palm off. Rather, most of them are small business owners--entrepreneurs who generally will NOT slow down the velocity of money as you describe, but maximize that velocity by investing in their own business--increases in employees, equipment, and inventory. THAT is what the socialist, Obama either SEEKS to disrupt or ignorantly would disrupt as a consequence of his programs and policies.

If they are investing in their business, then it is a business expense that isn't taxed. The tax is on net, not gross, so your argument is totally invalid, as usual.

I've come to have a bit of respect for your ability to reason, MS--even leftist that you are. But this isn't even close to your usual standard.

As you said yourself, it's all about "velocity of money"--and my old favorite, the Keynesian Multiplier. The pittance of tax savings is irrelevant compared to the beneficial effect of the investing in the form of job creation, geometrically greater total income for many individuals, secondary, tertiary, etc. consumption, investment, etc.

Your argument is that Obama's policies will slow down small businesses investing in themselves because of the increase in income taxes on businesses. My point is that since internal investment is an expense, it comes out of the business' coffers before the taxes, so any increase in taxes makes no difference. If you are trying to say that taxing profits creates a disincentive to invest and grow the business, I disagree, as the growth will still increase profits.

If there is some other point you are trying to make, please clarify.

[mraynrand]

The CBO put out a study as well that casts severe doubt on the benefits of a tax cut.

.
I've demonstrated several times already why that study you cite is totally misleading, and I'm tired of it. All four times taxes have been reduced - Collidge, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush, tax revenues have increased. GDP also went up dramatically, making it look as though, in some cases, tax receipts as easured against GDP went down, but that's a dodge. Kennedy understood the value of supporting business. He also believed that you should "Ask not what your contry can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country." It's stunning to see lefties like you so far from that ideal.

Of course you are. You are right, and we are wrong.

There is no valid criticism of the laffer curve, i apologize. :roll:

Well, finally, you got something right! But seriously - I've seen exceptions and arguments against the Laffer curve that have merit (Other factors can shift the Laffer curve so that lowering tax rates may not be helpful, for example). But in general, it's been pretty consistent that lowering tax burdens on business spurs growth and results in increases tax revenues even at lower tax rates.

The world has changed a lot - there are tons of competitive countries out there with lower business tax rates. The U.S. has been competitive with such countries because we have had a huge advantage in infrastructure and logistics. That won't be true forever (and already is untrue in certain areas) as other countries catch up. It seems like basic logic that increasing business tax rates in a competitive world business environment is dangerous. Internal examples of states struggling with higher tax rates seems to support this idea. I don't want to give businesses a free pass - like mad scientist says, if there are loopholes for businesses to go overseas and avoid taxes, but still have access to markets, such loopholes are unfair. Still, I'm guessing you would get less of that if tax rates were much lower here.

[texaspackerbacker]

The flaw in what you say, MadScientist, is that the great majority of these top earners are NOT retired fat cats or spoiled trust fund brats or whatever bogus image of the rich you are trying to palm off. Rather, most of them are small business owners--entrepreneurs who generally will NOT slow down the velocity of money as you describe, but maximize that velocity by investing in their own business--increases in employees, equipment, and inventory. THAT is what the socialist, Obama either SEEKS to disrupt or ignorantly would disrupt as a consequence of his programs and policies.

If they are investing in their business, then it is a business expense that isn't taxed. The tax is on net, not gross, so your argument is totally invalid, as usual.

I've come to have a bit of respect for your ability to reason, MS--even leftist that you are. But this isn't even close to your usual standard.

As you said yourself, it's all about "velocity of money"--and my old favorite, the Keynesian Multiplier. The pittance of tax savings is irrelevant compared to the beneficial effect of the investing in the form of job creation, geometrically greater total income for many individuals, secondary, tertiary, etc. consumption, investment, etc.

Your argument is that Obama's policies will slow down small businesses investing in themselves because of the increase in income taxes on businesses. My point is that since internal investment is an expense, it comes out of the business' coffers before the taxes, so any increase in taxes makes no difference. If you are trying to say that taxing profits creates a disincentive to invest and grow the business, I disagree, as the growth will still increase profits.

If there is some other point you are trying to make, please clarify.

That's more like it. You're back on your game, MS.

The argument is that there will be a helluva lot less to invest internally as the IRS grabs a much bigger portion, although there is an element of the last thing you said too--less incentive to invest in more production or inventory if demand is likely to be less--as it inevitably would with Obama raising taxes. To be more precise, the horrendously leftist (and likely to get more that way) Congress will raise taxes, and unlike McCain, Obama would not lift a veto pen to prevent it.

The huge commitment toward this bail out thing is like an open invitation to the damned chronic tax increasers of the left to raise them. And if, as projected, rebounding real estate values bring some or all of that money back, then there is the golden opportunity for Obama to come across as a budget balancer--with the help of the spinners of the leftist mainstream media, of course.

It all ends up being a colossal wet blanket on the economy, combined with a pseudo-success for subordinating the free market to government solutions--which is the exact definition of liberalism.

[bobblehead]

Apropos of this thread….a few good nuggets in this article:

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/10/our_everyone_gets_a_trophy_eco.htm

……When it comes to taxes in general, Barack Obama has made it plain that he would raise the tax rate on the highest earners, while John McCain comforts his supporters with a promise that he would penalize the earnings of the rich at a lower rate. Both candidates miss the disincentivizing nature of taxation.

Realistically, taxes should be seen as a price or a penalty against effort. This is important because no matter how many times politicians tell us they’ll stimulate the economy through income redistribution, the fact remains that economic growth is always and everywhere a function of productive work effort.

Or, as Andrew Mellon (Treasury secretary under presidents Harding, Coolidge and Hoover) noted in Taxation: The People’s Business: “when a man’s initiative is crippled by legislation or by a tax system which denies him the right to receive a reasonable share of his earnings, then he will no longer exert himself and the country will be deprived of the energy on which its continued greatness depends.”

Both Obama and McCain miss Mellon’s point because in quibbling over the correct rate for the most productive taxpayers, they’re advocating that success should be penalized at a higher rate than lack of success. That the vital, productive few create enormous opportunities for every American seems to concern neither.
Good idea to quote Hoover's treasury secretary for relevancy in a time of economic crisis :roll:

Even if you buy into the concept of marginal rates impacting the desire to earn more, the rates in the early 20's were something like 70%. Do you really think there is that much difference in motivation for a person who pulls in $1 million weather he keeps $64000 or $50000 of his next $10000. I flat out dispute your assumptions with the rates we are talking about.

As for penalizing success, where does this success come from? The success of the rich is dependent on the success of the country as a whole. So what they pay is the price of doing business in the US. Its the cost of keeping the conditions that allow for their successes in tact. By putting your blinders on and looking at this only as a fairness for the rich issue, you are seriously missing the big picture. You are trying to set the US up to fail like the levees in NO, and lead the economy to collapse like the bridge in MN.

A progressive tax system is simply watered down socialism...I don't think you can dispute that. An attempt to equalize things. That being said you act as though it isn't a proven fact that capitalism is responsible for most of the wealth created in the world. Capitalism works....when an exceptional person comes along and renovates the way things are done it isn't he who is succeeding and dependent on the lower class, it is the lower class that is getting something of value.

When sam walton renovated delivery systems and big box stores he created value and wealth for every person in america (and becoming the world). His success was dependent on ONE thing...people were getting MORE value for their dollar than they were before he came along. I wish to encourage people like that to make my life easier and better...you wish to tax them to make your life better while thinking it won't cost jobs/production/wealth. Newsflash...the UAW thought the same thing about their oppressive employers.

[HowardRoark]

And another thing......my Dad always told me when I was a kid that life wasn't fair. I think maybe we need someone like him running for President. No trophies for everyone. Put a video on you-tube.....who cares, doesn't make you Steven frickin Spielberg. Life ain't fair.
So stop bitching about the taxes being raised on the rich.

I missed this one earlier today……

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I am not bitching about “fairness” when it comes to taxes. Trust me; I know by any definition it isn’t “fair” when it comes to the rich. I see people with 12,000 square foot homes on Lake Minnetonka who go to West Palm Beach to their 15,000 square foot home (when not staying at their mountain home in Montana). Fair Shmare. I don’t live in a 12,000 square foot home; but that’s not the point.

The point is that our system NEEDS rich people. We need the carrot of reward that will spur on the innovations that create superior products, jobs, and yes……wealth.

What would motivate innovation without reward? I don’t think beatings with a stick proved to be too fruitful.

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumb_31/1132945071eVRDko.jpg

[mraynrand]

Geezus Roark,

Don't you get it? It's WRONG to do things for self aggrandizement. It's WRONG to do things for self gain. You should only do things to help your fellow man. If you were born lucky in the game of genetic dice, with greater abilities and/or motivation, the results of your labor are due to sheer luck, and you should gratefully want to share them with everyone else. It's wrong to have a larger house than anyone else, or a bigger faster car. It's wrong to want a vacation home or a new TV, if the least of yor neighbors doesn't have one. That is the liberal ideal. That is why every liberal voluntarily lives as an equal to the poorest American, gleefully sacrificing all they have to live up to their ideal. Why wold you think that a 35% tax rate is arbitrary. It's NOT. It's just what's possible. Someday you'll understand that a 99% tax rate on a businessman earning 1,000,000 is only fair to the person who makes 10,000 dollars. Split up that 990,000 dollars equally, and you create a huge class of people ready to spend to buy your products! Everyone wins!

[MadScientist]

The point is that our system NEEDS rich people. We need the carrot of reward that will spur on the innovations that create superior products, jobs, and yes……wealth.

Have I argued otherwise? No.
Will the Obama proposals eliminate the rich? No.
Will the Obama proposals prevent people from getting rich? No.
At the very worst, the proposals will slightly slow down the speed at which people move from rich to really filthy rich. And even this is debatable, as it will be more dependent on the overall economy than marginal tax rates.

[mraynrand]

Which is more fair: A 42% marginal tax rate on 'the rich' (above 250K) or a 43% rate? If 42, why not 43? If 43 is fair, why not 44%? Why not 90%?

[HowardRoark]

The point is that our system NEEDS rich people. We need the carrot of reward that will spur on the innovations that create superior products, jobs, and yes……wealth.

Have I argued otherwise? No.
Will the Obama proposals eliminate the rich? No.
Will the Obama proposals prevent people from getting rich? No.
At the very worst, the proposals will slightly slow down the speed at which people move from rich to really filthy rich. And even this is debatable, as it will be more dependent on the overall economy than marginal tax rates.

Good. I’m glad we agree that this issue has absolutely nothing to do with fairness. Now we can move on to something else.

What do you think of a Regressive Tax Code? Maybe we should have marginal tax rates that phase out after $250,000. Maybe we can put in tax credits after your 1,000,001st dollar is earned.

Just an idea; but I bet you would see the overall GDP go up at a much higher rate.

[LL2]

This was posted on the Fast Company website. Obama is all about disguise and not showing the truth. It's interesting the article below points out that Obama's tax cuts are nothing more than "welfare" tax credits. McCain needs to point this out tonight.

October 14, 2008

Obama’s promise of a 95% tax cut for working families is nothing more than an illusion. - The Wall Street Journal

The Journal calls Obama's tax cut promise a "clever pitch because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%."

Obama, according to them, has redefined the meaning of a tax cut. "For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase 'tax credit'… You can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut… There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers… Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job."

http://www.fastcompany.com/big-idea/obama-s-promise-95-tax-working-families-nothing-more-illusion?partner=rss

[texaspackerbacker]

My Fellow Conservatives:

There you go again--drifting in the wrong direction, politically and rhetorically, anyway. Don't you get it? When you whine and rant about unfair taxation of the rich, progressive taxation being watered down socialism, etc., You may be right as rain--you ARE right, as a matter of fact. But you AREN'T doing the cause any good.

Class warfare rhetoric/over-taxing the rich/redistributing wealth are WHAT RESONATES WITH THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE. And that fact is accentuated by the fact that the leftist mainstream media unabashedly promotes the concept that bringing down the rich and doling out funds to the non-rich is a good thing.

Do NOT go off on another tangent about how I am a socialist or liberal or whatever, because I am with you guys in what you say. I'm just saying it does no good to say it.

Rather harping on the fairness thing, we need to emphasize that increasing taxes dampens the economy and harms everybody. We also need to emphasize that Obama's $250,000 threshhold for his redistribution scheme does NOT merely bring down the rich, but harms small business, the main job creating engine for the economy. We also need to emphasize that any business tax increase--which Obama's redistribution thing absolutely is, along with high corporate taxes--is passed along to consumers, harming the people he claims to seek to help. Furthermore, we need to emphasize the fact that these business taxes contribute severely to sending jobs overseas by making American companies at a competitive disadvantage.

So get off the fairness thing already. It plays right into the hand of Obama and his class warfare promoters.

[mraynrand]

Tex, your focus is correct, but it requires a bit of time to explain. I'd like McCain to make that argument - especially the idea that Obama wants to keep jobs in America, but is doing exactly the thing that will drive jobs away. If McCain can draw the parallel between what happened to jobs in Ohio and Michigan to Obama's plan for America (Obama will give us Michigan and Ohio nationwide), that might work. But I heard Rasmussen talking about the polling, and people are still choosing Obama, even those who understand Obama's tax proposals. 47% of Americans agree that the tax increase on those making 250K or more will be good for the economy. It will be very hard for McCain (who is terrible talking about the economy) to educate the American public in one debate, especially since 1) he is trying to compete with Obama on the entitlement front and 2) Obama is much better at sounding and appearing confident and authoritative on economic issues.

I think right now there is a very good chance we're going to get to see if Maxi and Bobble are right about re-energizing the conservatives with an Obama presidency, and a supermajority, fillibuster proof Democrat congress. Will an Obama presidency pull the country to the left, or will there be a strong pull back reaction? Should be a wild ride.

[HowardRoark]

Rather harping on the fairness thing, we need to emphasize that increasing taxes dampens the economy and harms everybody. We also need to emphasize that Obama's $250,000 threshhold for his redistribution scheme does NOT merely bring down the rich, but harms small business, the main job creating engine for the economy. We also need to emphasize that any business tax increase--which Obama's redistribution thing absolutely is, along with high corporate taxes--is passed along to consumers, harming the people he claims to seek to help. Furthermore, we need to emphasize the fact that these business taxes contribute severely to sending jobs overseas by making American companies at a competitive disadvantage.

So get off the fairness thing already. It plays right into the hand of Obama and his class warfare promoters.

That's what we are saying.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex, your focus is correct, but it requires a bit of time to explain. I'd like McCain to make that argument - especially the idea that Obama wants to keep jobs in America, but is doing exactly the thing that will drive jobs away. If McCain can draw the parallel between what happened to jobs in Ohio and Michigan to Obama's plan for America (Obama will give us Michigan and Ohio nationwide), that might work. But I heard Rasmussen talking about the polling, and people are still choosing Obama, even those who understand Obama's tax proposals. 47% of Americans agree that the tax increase on those making 250K or more will be good for the economy. It will be very hard for McCain (who is terrible talking about the economy) to educate the American public in one debate, especially since 1) he is trying to compete with Obama on the entitlement front and 2) Obama is much better at sounding and appearing confident and authoritative on economic issues.

I think right now there is a very good chance we're going to get to see if Maxi and Bobble are right about re-energizing the conservatives with an Obama presidency, and a supermajority, fillibuster proof Democrat congress. Will an Obama presidency pull the country to the left, or will there be a strong pull back reaction? Should be a wild ride.

Howard, that may be what you're saying, but it sure seems to me that your real passion is limited to the "it ain't fair" rhetoric.

Aynrand, don't be so surprised at those Rasmussen figures. The way those 47% perceived it--and more importantly, the way the LEFTIST MAINSTREAM MEDIA is framing/spinning it--is SELF-INTEREST--Us against Them. And if the "Us" is people making less than $250,000--even with small business owners included, there are a helluva lot more of "us" than "Them". People need to be told--a lot more forcefully--the downside of tax increasing--even (maybe especially) of the "wealthy")--and I mean the downside for their own situations, not merely because "it ain't fair". And you guys--and probably most of McCain's people and much of the conservative hierarchy in general--are ill-equipped to do that, being either non-Keynesian or very unenthused Keynesian.

If politics is a game--and to a great extent it is, the Bad Guys are playing that game a lot better than the Good Guys--and of course, playing the game is a helluva lot easier when the OFFICIALS--the MEDIA, to continue the metaphor is all for the other side.

And this doesn't even address the concept that emphasizing the economy over the far more important issues, SECURITY AGAINST TERRORISM and MILITARY/DEFENSE and maintaining American dominance is a flawed way to attack an opponent that is so likely to literally flush our dominant position in the world and our prosperity at home down the toilet.

Aynrand, the idea that we would be better off in the long run LOSING and letting Obama JIMMY CARTER-IZE the country--as you seem to be talking about--has been around for a long time. The question is, will we even have a country left--will the country be so damaged by Obama and the left that we will be forever CHANGED--there's that ugly word again?

[mraynrand]

Aynrand, the idea that we would be better off in the long run LOSING and letting Obama JIMMY CARTER-IZE the country--as you seem to be talking about--has been around for a long time. The question is, will we even have a country left--will the country be so damaged by Obama and the left that we will be forever CHANGED--there's that ugly word again?

Maxi and Bobble want it to happen to usher in a strengthened, more conservative GOP. I think it's just as likely, if not more likely, that the GOP will see it as a message that they need to move even more to the left.

[texaspackerbacker]

Aynrand, the idea that we would be better off in the long run LOSING and letting Obama JIMMY CARTER-IZE the country--as you seem to be talking about--has been around for a long time. The question is, will we even have a country left--will the country be so damaged by Obama and the left that we will be forever CHANGED--there's that ugly word again?

Maxi and Bobble want it to happen to usher in a strengthened, more conservative GOP. I think it's just as likely, if not more likely, that the GOP will see it as a message that they need to move even more to the left.

If we lose, I suppose I will be chasing that band wagon down the road trying to jump on also.

When you combine the fact that we have (and will have more so) a horrendously left wing Congress--and the higher tax implications of that regardless of who wins for president--with the relative meaninglessness of many of the issues being discussed--education, health care, abortion, etc., and add in the fact that there's hardly a dimes worth of difference between McCain and Obama on the economy--other than tax policy, and you could easily make a case for letting Obama "Carter-ize" the country--screw things up royally, then hope for a dramatic movement toward goodness and conservativism.

The one issue that GLARINGLY IGNORES, however, is the STRONG PROSPECT of Obama allowing repeats of 9/11--damage to the country that will be difficult if not impossible to recover from.

The other flaw in the position of Maxie, Bobblehead, and others is two-fold:

First of all, Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator, was UNIQUE to the extent that it is extremely unlikely we could ever find somebody who could totally defy the leftist propaganda of the media as Reagan did. Secondly, even if a clone of Reagan himself came along, the damned despicable elitist leftist media would NOT let down its guard again. They took Reagan too lightly, assuming the American people would choose the shit put out by the left over the pro-American rhetoric of Reagan. They won't make that mistake again. The impossible dream of suffering through 4 or 8 years of Obama, and then having a new rebirth of conservative dominance is just that ....... impossible. By that time, the leftist media will have literally canonized Obama and anointed his equally far left successor--unless, of course, the country is ruined by terrorist hits--and that's just too big a price to pay.

[Tarlam!]

Income Tax in Germany for a non-married person earning 250 K USD is 45%.

Just saying.

[Scott Campbell]

Income Tax in Germany for a non-married person earning 250 K USD is 45%.

Just saying.



That is seriously, seriously F'd up.

[texaspackerbacker]

Income Tax in Germany for a non-married person earning 250 K USD is 45%.

Just saying.



That is seriously, seriously F'd up.

That is seriously, the model that Obama is trying to follow.

[Tarlam!]

Income Tax in Germany for a non-married person earning 250 K USD is 45%.

Just saying.



That is seriously, seriously F'd up.

I believe it's higher in Denmark, but you'd have to ask Micheal to confirm.

[hoosier]

Income Tax in Germany for a non-married person earning 250 K USD is 45%.

Just saying.



That is seriously, seriously F'd up.

Does that mean Germany is not on the list of countries you'd consider moving to? :lol:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Income Tax in Germany for a non-married person earning 250 K USD is 45%.

Just saying.



That is seriously, seriously F'd up.

Does that mean Germany is not on the list of countries you'd consider moving to? :lol:

They'll all move there..how can they not? Food, fun and da fuhrer!

[Partial]

Income Tax in Germany for a non-married person earning 250 K USD is 45%.

Just saying.

I work with a german guy who moved to Wisconsin, land of insane taxes, to get rid of the German taxes. Now I see why!!!

[mmmdk]

Income Tax in Germany for a non-married person earning 250 K USD is 45%.

Just saying.

I work with a german guy who moved to Wisconsin, land of insane taxes, to get rid of the German taxes. Now I see why!!!

Rather insane taxes than insane people with guns.

[mmmdk]

Income Tax in Germany for a non-married person earning 250 K USD is 45%.

Just saying.



That is seriously, seriously F'd up.

...u don't get out much do ya?

[Scott Campbell]

Income Tax in Germany for a non-married person earning 250 K USD is 45%.

Just saying.



That is seriously, seriously F'd up.

...u don't get out much do ya?


I travel pretty much every week. But not out of the US.

[mraynrand]

Income Tax in Germany for a non-married person earning 250 K USD is 45%.

Just saying.

I work with a german guy who moved to Wisconsin, land of insane taxes, to get rid of the German taxes. Now I see why!!!

Rather insane taxes than insane people with guns.

He agrees with you
http://www.kandidatenwatch.de/images/abgeordnete/big/1736/udo_voigt.jpg

[Tarlam!]

Income Tax in Germany for a non-married person earning 250 K USD is 45%.

Just saying.



That is seriously, seriously F'd up.

...u don't get out much do ya?

How are Americans supposed to know how much tax we pay, Michael? I think we need to be more willing to offer information and be less inclined to ridicule people who are as intelligent as most our Rats are, but have a strong focus on their home country.

[texaspackerbacker]

It's not how much tax you pay or even completely, how much income you have before or after taxes.

It's about the lifestyle you have--the prosperity and the freedom to enjoy that prosperity, and the relative security that all the good things won't go away--one way or another.

I'm not saying Europeans don't have a high degree of those things--I haven't been over there in well over a decade. I would strongly suggest, though, that the standard of living even in the most well off countries of Europe--based on the criteria I cited above--is still well below the U.S.

The thing I hate most about Obama and the Dem/libs is that they seemingly intentionally would drag America down. And since Europe is undoubtedly on the second highest perch, the same worldwide egalitarian policies and lax anti-terror policies that would be the hallmark of an Obama Administration would likely also drag down Europe.

Some in here protest so vehemently about Obama's redistribution of wealth scheme domestically--and I certainly am not in favor of that. The much greater problem than what he and his crowd would do to drag down the wealthy at home is what they would do to drag down ALL Americans--and presumably all western Europeans at the same time--in relation to the rest of the world.

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up--even though they never quite reach the level of the haves--who in the process, rise also. That is true both domestically and in a world perspective.

[Scott Campbell]

Income Tax in Germany for a non-married person earning 250 K USD is 45%.

Just saying.



That is seriously, seriously F'd up.

...u don't get out much do ya?

How are Americans supposed to know how much tax we pay, Michael? I think we need to be more willing to offer information and be less inclined to ridicule people who are as intelligent as most our Rats are, but have a strong focus on their home country.


I wasn't offended.

I understand many Europeans pay much higher individual tax rates than here in the US. And thus the comment - that is seriously F'd up. And I think its part of the reason the US is such an economic powerhouse. We have that as a competitive advantage.

You can make a pretty convincing argument that other countries know far more about the US than we know about them - in general.

[Scott Campbell]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........




I'll agree with this statement completely.

[hoosier]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.

[mraynrand]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.

If you tax business too much, you lose business. It's been demonstrated again and again. "trickle down" is just another way of saying "supporting business" and "employment." every time a business hires someone, that is 'trickle down.' None of the 33% of people who currently pay no taxes will get 500-1000 bucks under Obama will be able to use that money to start a business to employ anyone. But many of them will likely lose a job because a business (one of the larger small businesses that are responsible for 50% of small business earnings) will lay people off. and the first people they will lay off are the lowest skilled, lowest earners (that 33% that pay no taxes because they don't earn much). So if you're in that group, spend your 500 to 1000 bucks carefully, it may have to last you till 2011 (If you even get it - Clinton promised the same thing, then turned around and raised taxes on almost everyone).

[HowardRoark]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.

Really?

[texaspackerbacker]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.

Really?

Abject failure was the liberal social programs, most notably, the vaunted "Great Society" in the decades before Reagan. Far more people ended up in poverty; Practically none of the poor got out of poverty; And the macro-economy in the country by the Jimmy Carter years was worse than it has EVER been--geometically WORSE than the trumped up "crisis" we have now.

Success was what followed--the Reagan tax cuts which on the macro-economic level, brought two decades of unprecedented prosperity--disrupted only by 9/11. On the micro-economic level, specifically regarding poor people, far MORE people got OUT of poverty, bootstrapping themselves due to the tax cuts in individual circumstances, and due to the growth and prosperity brought by the tax cuts that helped everybody.

This is a clear illustration of the contrast between the liberal Democrat way and the conservative Republican way.

On an international level, you have the equally stark contrast between the pre-Reagan policies of propping up socialist dictators like Robert Mugabe in as much of the world as the Dem/libs could, and the promoting of freedom and free enterprise capitalism by Republicans from Reagan through George W.Bush. The fruits of the former are the genocide, extreme poverty, tyranny, and depravity which we see in Africa. The fruits of the latter are the generally high standard of living, freedom, and normalcy which is prevalent in the great majority of Latin America and much of Asia.

[Scott Campbell]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.



We have the largest GNP and highest standard of living in the world. Some failure.

[mraynrand]

I want Barack's money.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.



We have the largest GNP and highest standard of living in the world. Some failure.

Categorically false. We do not have the highest standard of living.

We have a country that has wealth unevenly distributed as compared to other developed nations. The United States has one of the widest rich-poor gaps of any high-income nation today, and that gap continues to grow. Many prominent economists (Alan Greenspan, etc.) have warned that the widening rich-poor gap in the U.S. population is a problem that could undermine and destabilize the country's economy and standard of living.

We aren't in the top ten in the UN's Human Development Index.

In the Human Poverty Index we rank 16th.

In the Economist's quality of life we rank 13th.

Median wages have been in decline since 74. In 05 the median, adjusted for inflation was less than what it was in 74.

[retailguy]

I want Barack's money.

Well, if you make less than $250k you "might" get a bit of it. :twisted:

If not, well, then, YOU ALREADY HAVE TOO MUCH DAMN MONEY. :shock:

[texaspackerbacker]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.



We have the largest GNP and highest standard of living in the world. Some failure.

Categorically false. We do not have the highest standard of living.

We have a country that has wealth unevenly distributed as compared to other developed nations. The United States has one of the widest rich-poor gaps of any high-income nation today, and that gap continues to grow. Many prominent economists (Alan Greenspan, etc.) have warned that the widening rich-poor gap in the U.S. population is a problem that could undermine and destabilize the country's economy and standard of living.

We aren't in the top ten in the UN's Human Development Index.

In the Human Poverty Index we rank 16th.

In the Economist's quality of life we rank 13th.

Median wages have been in decline since 74. In 05 the median, adjusted for inflation was less than what it was in 74.

Where do you come up with a line of total bullshit like that, Tyrone?

My previously stated criteria for "standard of living" are: prosperity, freedom to enjoy that prosperity, and security that the prosperity and freedom will not be disrupted. By that or any other rational criterion, how can you possibly claim the U.S. does NOT have the highest standard of living in the world?

Show me something other than leftist anti-American trash.

[hoosier]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.



We have the largest GNP and highest standard of living in the world. Some failure.

We also have increasing disparity between rich and poor, an education system that now ranks behind most developed countries in the world, a health care system that doesn't work for much of the middle and lower middle classes. I know you think that those who get the short end of the stick in this picture either like it that way or are getting their just desserts, but even if you like your country to resemble a Charles Dickens novel it's still hard to argue that the economic model we've been using for the last three decades is working.

[texaspackerbacker]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.



We have the largest GNP and highest standard of living in the world. Some failure.

We also have increasing disparity between rich and poor, an education system that now ranks behind most developed countries in the world, a health care system that doesn't work for much of the middle and lower middle classes. I know you think that those who get the short end of the stick in this picture either like it that way or are getting their just desserts, but even if you like your country to resemble a Charles Dickens novel it's still hard to argue that the economic model we've been using for the last three decades is working.

This also is simply NOT TRUE! It's merely a matter of leftists believing their own lies and quoting other leftists spewing those lies.

Our "poor" people are far better off than the middle classes of virtually any other country in the world, and more relevantly, our "poor" people are infinitely better off than people on a similar level relative to other people than 30 to 50 years ago--the pre-Reagan/liberal social program era. This is in terms of housing, transportation, food, entertainment, education, basically any criterion you can name.

The left can spew all the hate and negativity in this area they want, but it doesn't change the obvious facts on the ground.

[mraynrand]

We also have increasing disparity between rich and poor,

Why do you insist on pushing this bullshit. 'The poor' is determined by a level of income as is 'the rich.' Thus, an increasing disparity means that wealth is increasing. When you define poor as those making less than 20 or 25K (or any other set level) per/year, then the 'poor' by definition cannot get out of that class, because it is based only on income. If you follow the trajectory of INDIVIDUALS, you find that most poor don't stay in the statistical poor class - almost 80% of the poor make it out of that class and over 50% make it to middle class or above. The poor receive almost all of the benefits of entitlement programs as well, which is not factored into their 'poor' living status. More people are making to millionaires, and more than 70% of millionaires are NOT coming from monied backgrounds - that is, these are new millionaires coming from the middle or lower classes. Most of the studies I've seen do not exclude young part time workers , and college students as 'the poor.' even though such workers are moving through these positions into better paying jobs. That's why when you survey people and ask them how they are doing, you typically get over 80% saying they are doing well or extremely well. 80% of these same people, when interviewed and asked how the country is doing economically say it is doing poorly or bad. How can that be? (These numbers are from before the current credit crisis)

[HowardRoark]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.



We have the largest GNP and highest standard of living in the world. Some failure.

We also have increasing disparity between rich and poor, an education system that now ranks behind most developed countries in the world, a health care system that doesn't work for much of the middle and lower middle classes. I know you think that those who get the short end of the stick in this picture either like it that way or are getting their just desserts, but even if you like your country to resemble a Charles Dickens novel it's still hard to argue that the economic model we've been using for the last three decades is working.

I thought "trickle down"didn't work? Now we shift gears to eduction and healthcare not working instead?

We Know!!!!.....that's why we need free market answers.

[hoosier]

We also have increasing disparity between rich and poor,

Why do you insist on pushing this bullshit. 'The poor' is determined by a level of income as is 'the rich.' Thus, an increasing disparity means that wealth is increasing. When you define poor as those making less than 20 or 25K (or any other set level) per/year, then the 'poor' by definition cannot get out of that class, because it is based only on income. If you follow the trajectory of INDIVIDUALS, you find that most poor don't stay in the statistical poor class - almost 80% of the poor make it out of that class and over 50% make it to middle class or above. The poor receive almost all of the benefits of entitlement programs as well, which is not factored into their 'poor' living status. More people are making to millionaires, and more than 70% of millionaires are NOT coming from monied backgrounds - that is, these are new millionaires coming from the middle or lower classes. Most of the studies I've seen do not exclude young part time workers , and college students as 'the poor.' even though such workers are moving through these positions into better paying jobs. That's why when you survey people and ask them how they are doing, you typically get over 80% saying they are doing well or extremely well. 80% of these same people, when interviewed and asked how the country is doing economically say it is doing poorly or bad. How can that be? (These numbers are from before the current credit crisis)

I'll rephrase what I said and maybe my point will be clearer: (1) In the last three decades in the US real wages have increased at a significantly higher rate at the top in comparison with the middle and the bottom. (2) In the same period, wealth has become increasingly concentrated in the richest of the rich. If this were merely a reflection of the fact that wealth were increasing, you would expect to see a decline in the number of poor and a middle class that was gradually becoming wealthier. The numbers don't reflect either of those. Wealth certainly is increasing, but the main beneficiaries of that increase are the very rich.

[bobblehead]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.



We have the largest GNP and highest standard of living in the world. Some failure.

We also have increasing disparity between rich and poor, an education system that now ranks behind most developed countries in the world, a health care system that doesn't work for much of the middle and lower middle classes. I know you think that those who get the short end of the stick in this picture either like it that way or are getting their just desserts, but even if you like your country to resemble a Charles Dickens novel it's still hard to argue that the economic model we've been using for the last three decades is working.

This is a lie...the rich as defined by liberals in the last stimulas check are people making over 74k a year. The poor as defined by liberals trying to expand schip are people making less than 54k a year. That is a disparity between rich and poor of 20k a year. Some gap.

[texaspackerbacker]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.



We have the largest GNP and highest standard of living in the world. Some failure.

We also have increasing disparity between rich and poor, an education system that now ranks behind most developed countries in the world, a health care system that doesn't work for much of the middle and lower middle classes. I know you think that those who get the short end of the stick in this picture either like it that way or are getting their just desserts, but even if you like your country to resemble a Charles Dickens novel it's still hard to argue that the economic model we've been using for the last three decades is working.

I thought "trickle down"didn't work? Now we shift gears to eduction and healthcare not working instead?

We Know!!!!.....that's why we need free market answers.

Wonderful! I applaud you for saying that!

But Wait! You're the guy who wants to have government FORCE people against their will to pay for health insurance. No HYPOCRISY there, is there?

[bobblehead]

My Fellow Conservatives:

There you go again--drifting in the wrong direction, politically and rhetorically, anyway. Don't you get it? When you whine and rant about unfair taxation of the rich, progressive taxation being watered down socialism, etc., .

Tex...please...I went on to state that capitalism is responsible for most of the wealth created in the history of the world....I was blasting the progressive taxation as watered down socialism as in socialism doesn't work and never has...I never even used the word fair. I was making the exact point you are.

[bobblehead]

Aynrand, the idea that we would be better off in the long run LOSING and letting Obama JIMMY CARTER-IZE the country--as you seem to be talking about--has been around for a long time. The question is, will we even have a country left--will the country be so damaged by Obama and the left that we will be forever CHANGED--there's that ugly word again?

Maxi and Bobble want it to happen to usher in a strengthened, more conservative GOP. I think it's just as likely, if not more likely, that the GOP will see it as a message that they need to move even more to the left.

I admit one thing...the republicans aren't very good at figuring out what their base wants. They need another leader like gingrich to emerge who is confident and committed to what he believes and is not merely interested in getting elected. Those that are only interested in keeping their seats are weak people and weak republicans. They are not capable of staying true to conservative convictions and they will lose. They aren't in the game to do what is right...they might as well be democrats.

I am not confident that they will figure it out, but new republican candidates will emerge who will....and we will be a better country for it.

Final note...I don't WANT it to happen, I want the republicans in office now to act like conservatives and do the right thing...they are not, that leaves little choice, they must be replaced or we are no better off than we are with democrats in office. The country heading the wrong way fast or slow makes no difference to me, we need a REAL CHANGE IN DIRECTION!!

[bobblehead]

The fundamental difference between liberal and conservative is that the libs want to bring the haves down to the level of the have nots, while the conservatives want to enable the have nots to bring themselves up........

I'll agree with this statement completely.

The conservative recipe for how the have nots can "bring themselves up," which is trickle-down economics, has proven itself to be an abject failure in accomplishing what you claim it is supposed to enable.



We have the largest GNP and highest standard of living in the world. Some failure.

Categorically false. We do not have the highest standard of living.

We have a country that has wealth unevenly distributed as compared to other developed nations. The United States has one of the widest rich-poor gaps of any high-income nation today, and that gap continues to grow. Many prominent economists (Alan Greenspan, etc.) have warned that the widening rich-poor gap in the U.S. population is a problem that could undermine and destabilize the country's economy and standard of living.

We aren't in the top ten in the UN's Human Development Index.

In the Human Poverty Index we rank 16th.

In the Economist's quality of life we rank 13th.

Median wages have been in decline since 74. In 05 the median, adjusted for inflation was less than what it was in 74.

Well....if the UN did a study it must be giving america a fair shake.

[bobblehead]

I'll rephrase what I said and maybe my point will be clearer: (1) In the last three decades in the US real wages have increased at a significantly higher rate at the top in comparison with the middle and the bottom. (2) In the same period, wealth has become increasingly concentrated in the richest of the rich. If this were merely a reflection of the fact that wealth were increasing, you would expect to see a decline in the number of poor and a middle class that was gradually becoming wealthier. The numbers don't reflect either of those. Wealth certainly is increasing, but the main beneficiaries of that increase are the very rich.

You use the last 3 decades as your example...I ask you this....3 decades ago did you have a 50" flatscreen? How about a PSP?? Maybe a Bose stereo?? NO, quality of life then for the "upper class" compared to quality of life today for the "middle class" doesn't compare. Trying to compare their earnings is like masturbating with sandpaper.

[Scott Campbell]

We also have increasing disparity between rich and poor......



If a poor person quadruples their income from 25K to 100K, and a wealthier person only doubles their income from 1M to 2M, there is an increasing disparity between the rich and the poor.


I say that's good for everybody, unless your in the business of pandering to the poor and making excuses.

[retailguy]

We also have increasing disparity between rich and poor......

If a poor person quadruples their income from 25K to 100K, and a wealthier person only doubles their income from 1M to 2M, there is an increasing disparity between the rich and the poor.


I say that's good for everybody, unless your in the business of pandering to the poor and making excuses.


DING, DING, DING. We have a WINNER!

[hoosier]

We also have increasing disparity between rich and poor......



If a poor person quadruples their income from 25K to 100K, and a wealthier person only doubles their income from 1M to 2M, there is an increasing disparity between the rich and the poor.


I say that's good for everybody, unless your in the business of pandering to the poor and making excuses.

Nice try but that's not what's happening. In your example middle incomes would be rising faster than the highest incomes. In fact, however, it's the other way around: middle incomes are more or less static whereas upper incomes have increased by 80%.

[RashanGary]

Hey zig, I've got to be to bed tonight by 8:00 so no go on the W/L. Can't work PM's right now. Mods fix please.

[mraynrand]

If a poor person quadruples their income from 25K to 100K, and a wealthier person only doubles their income from 1M to 2M, there is an increasing disparity between the rich and the poor. .

But in this scenario, the person earning 100K is no longer poor. The poor is still defined by income, thus a person still earning 25K is poor, but you've added a rich person, increasing the disparity between rich and poor. That's why the key is to look at individual trajectories - most of 'the poor' do not remain poor their entire lives; most start poor and eventually become better off.

[HowardRoark]

Income confusion

By Thomas Sowell

Anyone who follows the media has probably heard many times that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and incomes of the population in general are stagnating. Moreover, those who say such things can produce many statistics, including data from the Census Bureau, which seem to indicate that.

On the other hand, income tax data recently released by the Internal Revenue Service seem to show the exact opposite: People in the bottom fifth of income-tax filers in 1996 had their incomes increase by 91 percent by 2005.

The top one percent — "the rich" who are supposed to be monopolizing the money, according to the left — saw their incomes decline by a whopping 26 percent.

Meanwhile, the average taxpayers' real income increased by 24 percent between 1996 and 2005.

How can all this be? How can official statistics from different agencies of the same government — the Census Bureau and the IRS — lead to such radically different conclusions?

There are wild cards in such data that need to be kept in mind when you hear income statistics thrown around — especially when they are thrown around by people who are trying to prove something for political purposes.

One of these wild cards is that most Americans do not stay in the same income brackets throughout their lives. Millions of people move from one bracket to another in just a few years.

What that means statistically is that comparing the top income bracket with the bottom income bracket over a period of years tells you nothing about what is happening to the actual flesh-and-blood human beings who are moving between brackets during those years.

That is why the IRS data, which are for people 25 years old and older, and which follow the same individuals over time, find those in the bottom 20 percent of income-tax filers almost doubling their income in a decade. That is why they are no longer in the same bracket.

That is also why the share of income going to the bottom 20 percent bracket can be going down, as the Census Bureau data show, while the income going to the people who began the decade in that bracket is going up by large amounts. Unfortunately, most income statistics, including those from the Census Bureau, do not follow individuals over time. The Internal Revenue Service does that and so does a study at the University of Michigan, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule.

Following trends among income brackets over the years creates the illusion of following people over time. But the only way to follow people is to follow people.

Another wild card in income statistics is that many such statistics are about households or families — whose sizes vary over time, vary between one racial or ethnic group and another, and vary between one income bracket and another.


That is why household or family income can remain virtually unchanged for decades while per capita income is going up by very large amounts. The number of people per household and per family is declining.

Differences in the number of people per household from one ethnic group to another is why Hispanics have higher household incomes than blacks, while blacks have higher individual incomes than Hispanics.

Considering the millions of dollars being paid to each of the anchors who broadcast network news, surely these networks can afford to hire a few statisticians to check the statistics being thrown around, before these numbers are broadcast across the land as facts on which we are supposed to base policies and elect presidents.

Now that the Internal Revenue data show the opposite of what the media and the politicians have been saying for years, should we expect either to change? Not bloody likely.

The University of Michigan study, which has been going on for decades, shows patterns very similar to those of the IRS data. Those patterns have been ignored for decades.

Too many in the media and in politics choose whatever statistics fit their preconceptions.

[HowardRoark]

That ‘Top One Percent’

By Thomas Sowell

People who are in the top one percent in income receive far more than one percent of the attention in the media. Even aside from miscellaneous celebrity bimbos, the top one percent attract all sorts of hand-wringing and finger-pointing.


A recent column by Anna Quindlen in Newsweek (or is that Newsweak?) laments that "the share of the nation's income going to the top 1 percent is at its highest level since 1928."


Who are those top one percent? For those who would like to join them, the question is: How can you do that?


The second question is easy to answer. Virtually anyone who owns a home in San Francisco, no matter how modest that person's income may be, can join the top one percent instantly just by selling their house.


But that's only good for one year, you may say. What if they don't have another house to sell next year?


Well, they won't be in the top one percent again next year, will they? But that's not unusual.


Americans in the top one percent, like Americans in most income brackets, are not there permanently, despite being talked about and written about as if they are an enduring "class" — especially by those who have overdosed on the magic formula of "race, class and gender," which has replaced thought in many intellectual circles.


At the highest income levels, people are especially likely to be transient at that level. Recent data from the Internal Revenue Service show that more than half the people who were in the top one percent in 1996 were no longer there in 2005.


Among the top one-hundredth of one percent, three-quarters of them were no longer there at the end of the decade.


These are not permanent classes but mostly people at current income levels reached by spikes in income that don't last.





These income spikes can occur for all sorts of reasons. In addition to selling homes in inflated housing markets like San Francisco, people can get sudden increases in income from inheritances, or from a gamble that pays off, whether in the stock market, the real estate market, or Las Vegas.


Some people's income in a particular year may be several times what it has ever been before or will ever be again.


Among corporate CEOs, those who cash in stock options that they have accumulated over the years get a big spike in income the year that they cash them in. This lets critics quote inflated incomes of the top-paid CEOs for that year. Some of these incomes are almost as large as those of big-time entertainers — who are never accused of "greed," by the way.


Just as there may be spikes in income in a given year, so there are troughs in income, which can be just as misleading in the hands of those who are ready to grab a statistic and run with it.


Many people who are genuinely affluent, or even rich, can have business losses or an off year in their profession, so that their income in a given year may be very low, or even negative, without their being poor in any meaningful sense.


This may help explain such things as hundreds of thousands of people with incomes below $20,000 a year living in homes that cost $300,000 and up. Many low-income people also have swimming pools or other luxuries that they could not afford if their incomes were permanently at their current level.


There is no reason for people to give up such luxuries because of a bad year, when they have been making a lot more money in previous years and can expect to be making a lot more money in future years.


Most Americans in the top fifth, the bottom fifth, or any of the fifths in between, do not stay there for a whole decade, much less for life. And most certainly do not remain permanently in the top one percent or the top one-hundredth of one percent.


Most income statistics do not follow given individuals from year to year, the way Internal Revenue statistics do. But those other statistics can create the misleading illusion that they do by comparing income brackets from year to year, even though people are moving in and out of those brackets all the time.


That especially includes the top one percent, who have become the focus of so much angst and so much rhetoric.

[HowardRoark]

http://www.accs.net/users/wolf/sowell.JPG