Joe the Plumber

[LL2]

This guy is going to determine the election. I was hearing on the radio that he is being interviewed by all the networks. I thought it was smart of McCain to use Joe as an example of how Obama's economic plan is going to hurt the economy, small business, and job growth. I heard he hasn't decided who he is going to vote for yet, but he is quite the celebrity now.

[Zool]

This guy is a Maverick, and this guy is a terrorist

http://www.ratewall.com/cpics/5792c825-cb3d-4187-868a-227fbf5a97e5_the_emperor.jpg http://www.the700level.com/images/2007/08/29/mace_windu.jpg


and this guy is going to decide the election?

http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/characters/images/mario/mario.jpg

[LL2]

I think Joe the Plumber doesn't want to say publicly who he is voting for, but I think the two sentences below give an indication of which way he is leaning.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/16/joe.plumber/index.html

Although Wurzelbacher wouldn't say who he is voting for, he did say that Obama's tax plan doesn't sit well with him.

"Redistributing the wealth, as far as my hard work, that upsets me," he said. "That's not right. That's not American."

[sheepshead]

I think Joe the Plumber doesn't want to say publicly who he is voting for, but I think the two sentences below give an indication of which way he is leaning.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/16/joe.plumber/index.html

Although Wurzelbacher wouldn't say who he is voting for, he did say that Obama's tax plan doesn't sit well with him.

"Redistributing the wealth, as far as my hard work, that upsets me," he said. "That's not right. That's not American."

What really amazes me is Barry slamming the Bush administration for the economy, yet he has $100 gajillion in his programs for the next few years. Pandering and typical liberal election year crap. He has no real answers on healthcare, just problems and some "magic wand"

[mraynrand]

I was talking with 'Joe the Plumber' yesterday. See my plumber runs a business with about 6 guys. he brings in about 1.5 million/year and takes home about 80-90K himself. He says if his taxes go up, he will 1) increase prices, and 2) lay off his newest guy (who earns about 25K as an apprentice). All I have to say, is that for the 33% of you who currently pay zero income tax and will get the 500 to 1000 dollar check from Joe the Plumber via Barack Extortion, spend that money wisely, it won't go as far and will probably have to last you until at least 2011, since you will likely lose your job. Thanks Barack!

[MadScientist]

I was talking with 'Joe the Plumber' yesterday. See my plumber runs a business with about 6 guys. he brings in about 1.5 million/year and takes home about 80-90K himself. He says if his taxes go up, he will 1) increase prices, and 2) lay off his newest guy (who earns about 25K as an apprentice). All I have to say, is that for the 33% of you who currently pay zero income tax and will get the 500 to 1000 dollar check from Joe the Plumber via Barack Extortion, spend that money wisely, it won't go as far and will probably have to last you until at least 2011, since you will likely lose your job. Thanks Barack!

Did you ask what his profits were? Without that critical piece of information, it is impossible to calculate what the change will actually be. The 1.5 M income is irrelevant. His personal taxes will go down, FICA will be unchanged. As a small business he will get a $500 tax credit per employee, plus additional tax credits if he provides health benefits.

Your doom and gloom economic fear-mongering is just bullshit.

[mraynrand]

I was talking with 'Joe the Plumber' yesterday. See my plumber runs a business with about 6 guys. he brings in about 1.5 million/year and takes home about 80-90K himself. He says if his taxes go up, he will 1) increase prices, and 2) lay off his newest guy (who earns about 25K as an apprentice). All I have to say, is that for the 33% of you who currently pay zero income tax and will get the 500 to 1000 dollar check from Joe the Plumber via Barack Extortion, spend that money wisely, it won't go as far and will probably have to last you until at least 2011, since you will likely lose your job. Thanks Barack!

Did you ask what his profits were? Without that critical piece of information, it is impossible to calculate what the change will actually be. The 1.5 M income is irrelevant. His personal taxes will go down, FICA will be unchanged. As a small business he will get a $500 tax credit per employee, plus additional tax credits if he provides health benefits.

Your doom and gloom economic fear-mongering is just bullshit.

Ooo, 2.5K tax credit for 5 employees. No health bennies. His personal tax relief of 2K won't do shit for his business taxes, which will increase by about 15K-25K under Obama, depending on his profit margin. Not doom and gloom, just reality. He will increase prices and lay off one worker.

[retailguy]

Your doom and gloom economic fear-mongering is just bullshit.

Well, you got the quote right, MadScientist, but you attributed it to the wrong candidate. This voter remembers a guy by the name of Bill Clinton very well, and I can still see him sitting at his desk in the oval office, speaking to the minions saying how he had "tried as hard as he could" to cut taxes but he just couldn't keep that promise. Then, he passed the largest tax increase in history, affecting ALL incomes over $30k a year.

Baracks promise to lower taxes is bullshit. Just wait. I will remind you of this....

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10022008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/democrats__taxes_and_phony_facts_131758.htm

DEMOCRATS, TAXES AND PHONY 'FACTS'
By L. BRENT BOZELL III
Obama: His tax-cut numbers flunk basic math test.
Posted: 3:50 am October 2, 2008

MEDIA "correction" squads are insisting that John McCain can't say Barack Obama will raise taxes, no matter how much that announcing Democrats will raise taxes is like announcing the sun will rise.

In 1992, Vice President Dan Quayle suggested Bill Clinton would raise taxes on the middle class - that everyone making over $36,000 could face a tax hike. Media "experts" accused the him of mangling "facts." Clinton was elected - and passed the largest tax increase in US history, right down to the middle class.

"It was Quayle who repeatedly twisted and misstated the facts," CNN reporter Brooks Jackson pronounced after the vice-presidential debate. On ABC, Jeff Green-field proclaimed: "Independent examination of this charge by, for example, press organizations, has found it, to say the least, misleading."

Cut to Feb. 18, 1993, when USA Today admitted: "Looks like Dan Quayle was right. Last year's vice-presidential debate . . . produced an accurate prediction from Quayle about the Clinton budget plan . . . The final plan, according to Clinton officials, will hit those making $30,000 and above."

Predictions about what a politician will do are predictions, not facts. Obviously, some predictions can be wilder - but predicting a massive tax hike under Democrats doesn't qualify as wild.

This goes not just for debates but also for commercials. In a fall '92 TV ad, the Bush-Quayle campaign used its estimates of how much Clinton would raise taxes, and all the networks leaped on it like starving men on a crust of bread.

NBC's Lisa Myers said "facts" were not on the GOP's side: "President Bush's new ad portrays Bill Clinton as a big taxer and a danger to the middle class . . . That's misleading. In fact, Clinton has proposed cutting taxes to the sort of people in this ad." In 20-20 hindsight, the fact is that Lisa Myers ended up with egg on her face.

In 2008, reporters and columnists touting Obama are repeatedly citing numbers by something called the Tax Policy Center. You'll never hear that this is a project operated by two liberal-Democrat think tanks. The figures suggest Obama will actually cut middle-class taxes more than John McCain. That, of course, assumes that President Obama will follow his plan to the letter, and that a newly elected liberal House and Senate will rubber-stamp his alleged tax cut for "95 percent" of Americans.

That, by the way, is a serious math error. How is it possible to cut 95 percent of Americans' taxes when the Tax Foundation reports that 40 percent of Americans don't pay any income tax? (This math apparently is too sophisticated for the guardians of "fact," who are nowhere to be found.)

When Democrats claim they'll be more generous in tax-cutting, does anyone believe a liberal-dominated Washington is going to do less taxing and spending than the Bush administration?

There's nothing wrong with the media suggesting that the Republican candidate is refusing to accept the genuineness of the Democratic candidate's proposal. But if they suggest McCain is lying or misleading voters, they're in danger of walking off yet another cliff of credibility if President Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi get to cook their own ever-expanding federal budget pie.

[arcilite]

I dont think arguing over candidates policies on an internet forum is going to change anyones mind who they will vote for.


With that said, I'm voting for Joe the plumber.

[mmmdk]

Unless America changes their ways; it'll be a steady, probably slow though, downward spiral towards financial mediocrity.

You owe money, dudes, time to pay!

[mraynrand]

I dont think arguing over candidates policies on an internet forum is going to change anyones mind who they will vote for.


With that said, I'm voting for Joe the plumber.

I agree with you. But seeing the counter arguments actually helps when talking to people you can actually influence. In talking to people, it's amazing how many are completely uninformed about the candidates. a snippet here and there is all they know. Someone told me yesterday that McCain supporters all want to kill Obama, because of what Palin said at a rally. But that story was total bulshit.

[mmmdk]

I dont think arguing over candidates policies on an internet forum is going to change anyones mind who they will vote for.


With that said, I'm voting for Joe the plumber.

Good one! :D

[texaspackerbacker]

I was talking with 'Joe the Plumber' yesterday. See my plumber runs a business with about 6 guys. he brings in about 1.5 million/year and takes home about 80-90K himself. He says if his taxes go up, he will 1) increase prices, and 2) lay off his newest guy (who earns about 25K as an apprentice). All I have to say, is that for the 33% of you who currently pay zero income tax and will get the 500 to 1000 dollar check from Joe the Plumber via Barack Extortion, spend that money wisely, it won't go as far and will probably have to last you until at least 2011, since you will likely lose your job. Thanks Barack!

Did you ask what his profits were? Without that critical piece of information, it is impossible to calculate what the change will actually be. The 1.5 M income is irrelevant. His personal taxes will go down, FICA will be unchanged. As a small business he will get a $500 tax credit per employee, plus additional tax credits if he provides health benefits.

Your doom and gloom economic fear-mongering is just bullshit.

I think the line, "takes home about 80-90K", tells you about his profit.

I was pissed off at McCain for several reasons during the debate. One of them was the repeated mentioning of Ol' Joe. It seemed to me that he was just feeding Obama's highly effective "class warfare" tactic.

Now, I don't know. It seems that a lot of people--maybe a lot of undecided people are responding to McCain's "Joe the Plumber" thing. How screwed up is that?

If McCain makes a comeback and spares America the disaster of an Obama presidency, I will certainly be thankful--even if it does reflect the awfully skewed perspective of the electorate as a result of a lot of people buying into the bogus crap of the leftist mainstream media propaganda machine. But it's still a damned shame that people can't prioritize and realize that terrorist hits are the REAL threat to America, INCLUDING the economic consequence of those hits--and that Obama is horrendously MORE likely to allow such terrorist hits. Why? Because he has opposed literally everything that has thus far prevented those terrorist hits since 9/11.

Like in football, there is no bad win ........ but some are a whole lot more satisfying than others.

[mraynrand]

Tex, the third debate was supposed to focus on economics, and in the current climate, if you try to drag the debate off that topic and into terrorism and the wars, you would look tone deaf or out of touch. The economic upheaval is dominating the news. McCain has to address it. No choice really in this one. Thems are the breaks.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex, the third debate was supposed to focus on economics, and in the current climate, if you try to drag the debate off that topic and into terrorism and the wars, you would look tone deaf or out of touch. The economic upheaval is dominating the news. McCain has to address it. No choice really in this one. Thems are the breaks.

I would suggest that the root of the whole current economic situation--I refuse to call it a crisis--is 9/11.

I further suggest that the absolute MOST SERIOUS THREAT--even if the topic is the economy--is new terrorist attacks. Aside from all the other unthinkable consequences of the terrorist enemy taking out one or more of our cities with nuclear, biochem, or radiological weapons, the effect on our economy would be devastating--geometrically worse than 9/11. Even an outbreak of low level things--bombings in malls or other public places--would set off a malaise that would drag down the economy.

This is NOT far-fetched. It is the natural consequence of events that really COULD happen, and which would be infinitely MORE LIKELY if Obama is elected--based on his opposition to ALL of the factors and policies that have been successful in preventing repeats of 9/11.

How could the truth of that and the importance of that NOT resonate with voters?

[mraynrand]

How could the truth of that and the importance of that NOT resonate with voters?

Because it is completely removed from their current reality. Bush's success in preventing another 9/11 scale attack basically puts it on the back burner. You can make the argument that another attack would tank the economy, and you're correct, but no one cares about that when they are watching their 401Ks go down the toilet.

[texaspackerbacker]

How could the truth of that and the importance of that NOT resonate with voters?

Because it is completely removed from their current reality. Bush's success in preventing another 9/11 scale attack basically puts it on the back burner. You can make the argument that another attack would tank the economy, and you're correct, but no one cares about that when they are watching their 401Ks go down the toilet.

And what the hell would happen to those 401 Ks if there was another or a series of serious terrorist hits?

The "current reality" is a bogus scenario painted by the leftist mainstream media--could you possibly disagree with that?

What is surprising is that they could be horribly successful in hoodwinking so many.

[mraynrand]

How could the truth of that and the importance of that NOT resonate with voters?

Because it is completely removed from their current reality. Bush's success in preventing another 9/11 scale attack basically puts it on the back burner. You can make the argument that another attack would tank the economy, and you're correct, but no one cares about that when they are watching their 401Ks go down the toilet.

And what the hell would happen to those 401 Ks if there was another or a series of serious terrorist hits?

The "current reality" is a bogus scenario painted by the leftist mainstream media--could you possibly disagree with that?

What is surprising is that they could be horribly successful in hoodwinking so many.

Mostly true, except I don't think it's totally bogus, but is definitely being played up. The press knows what they're doing.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/what_barack_obama_learned_from.html

[hoosier]

Looks like the Joe the Plumber story has a few, uh, cracks in it. He's a plumber, but...he doens't have a license (required to do plumbing work in Ohio) and he owes back taxes. I bet the back taxes thing will make him even more of a hero on Fox, though.

[sheepshead]

Looks like the Joe the Plumber story has a few, uh, cracks in it. He's a plumber, but...he doens't have a license (required to do plumbing work in Ohio) and he owes back taxes. I bet the back taxes thing will make him even more of a hero on Fox, though.

He doesnt need a license but who cares? Most of us get the point here and he put a face on it. Secondly, the MSM has dug into this guy more in 3 days then they have Barry Whosane in 15 months!!!!

Also, what would we find about you? Or me? I think this scrutiny backfires on them.

[Kiwon]

Looks like the Joe the Plumber story has a few, uh, cracks in it. He's a plumber, but...he doens't have a license (required to do plumbing work in Ohio) and he owes back taxes. I bet the back taxes thing will make him even more of a hero on Fox, though.

So his desire to own his own business isn't a worthy one?

I guess the 30% of the population that pay no federal income taxes are the victim/heroes on MSNBC. Gotta keep those welfare programs going to keep the permanent Democratic-voting underclass appeased.

[hoosier]

Looks like the Joe the Plumber story has a few, uh, cracks in it. He's a plumber, but...he doens't have a license (required to do plumbing work in Ohio) and he owes back taxes. I bet the back taxes thing will make him even more of a hero on Fox, though.

He doesnt need a license but who cares? Most of us get the point here and he put a face on it. Secondly, the MSM has dug into this guy more in 3 days then they have Barry Whosane in 15 months!!!!

Also, what would we find about you? Or me? I think this scrutiny backfires on them.

Maybe it backfires for people who already think the "MSM" is part of a giant left-wing conspiracy, but for the rest of the country I suspect it's just dotting the i's at the end of a news cycle. On to the next story.

[sheepshead]

Looks like the Joe the Plumber story has a few, uh, cracks in it. He's a plumber, but...he doens't have a license (required to do plumbing work in Ohio) and he owes back taxes. I bet the back taxes thing will make him even more of a hero on Fox, though.

He doesnt need a license but who cares? Most of us get the point here and he put a face on it. Secondly, the MSM has dug into this guy more in 3 days then they have Barry Whosane in 15 months!!!!

Also, what would we find about you? Or me? I think this scrutiny backfires on them.

Maybe it backfires for people who already think the "MSM" is part of a giant left-wing conspiracy, but for the rest of the country I suspect it's just dotting the i's at the end of a news cycle. On to the next story.

That may be the case, but you sure seem concerned about it several days later.

[Partial]

I was talking with 'Joe the Plumber' yesterday. See my plumber runs a business with about 6 guys. he brings in about 1.5 million/year and takes home about 80-90K himself. He says if his taxes go up, he will 1) increase prices, and 2) lay off his newest guy (who earns about 25K as an apprentice). All I have to say, is that for the 33% of you who currently pay zero income tax and will get the 500 to 1000 dollar check from Joe the Plumber via Barack Extortion, spend that money wisely, it won't go as far and will probably have to last you until at least 2011, since you will likely lose your job. Thanks Barack!

Did you ask what his profits were? Without that critical piece of information, it is impossible to calculate what the change will actually be. The 1.5 M income is irrelevant. His personal taxes will go down, FICA will be unchanged. As a small business he will get a $500 tax credit per employee, plus additional tax credits if he provides health benefits.

Your doom and gloom economic fear-mongering is just bullshit.

My parents have a small business, and their taxes are set to go up significantly. More than enough to put a kid or two through college each year. Funny... that money could go to their kids for tuition. Instead, its going to go to joe homie so he can it on his new air force ones and new rims for his curr.

I suspect you'd feel quite differently if you made anywhere near 250k plus. It's extortion.

[arcilite]

I was talking with 'Joe the Plumber' yesterday. See my plumber runs a business with about 6 guys. he brings in about 1.5 million/year and takes home about 80-90K himself. He says if his taxes go up, he will 1) increase prices, and 2) lay off his newest guy (who earns about 25K as an apprentice). All I have to say, is that for the 33% of you who currently pay zero income tax and will get the 500 to 1000 dollar check from Joe the Plumber via Barack Extortion, spend that money wisely, it won't go as far and will probably have to last you until at least 2011, since you will likely lose your job. Thanks Barack!

Did you ask what his profits were? Without that critical piece of information, it is impossible to calculate what the change will actually be. The 1.5 M income is irrelevant. His personal taxes will go down, FICA will be unchanged. As a small business he will get a $500 tax credit per employee, plus additional tax credits if he provides health benefits.

Your doom and gloom economic fear-mongering is just bullshit.

My parents have a small business, and their taxes are set to go up significantly. More than enough to put a kid or two through college each year. Funny... that money could go to their kids for tuition. Instead, its going to go to joe homie so he can it on his new air force ones and new rims for his curr.

I suspect you'd feel quite differently if you made anywhere near 250k plus. It's extortion.

Unless they employ more than 75 people... I am going to call shenanigans.

[hoosier]

Looks like the Joe the Plumber story has a few, uh, cracks in it. He's a plumber, but...he doens't have a license (required to do plumbing work in Ohio) and he owes back taxes. I bet the back taxes thing will make him even more of a hero on Fox, though.

He doesnt need a license but who cares? Most of us get the point here and he put a face on it. Secondly, the MSM has dug into this guy more in 3 days then they have Barry Whosane in 15 months!!!!

Also, what would we find about you? Or me? I think this scrutiny backfires on them.

Maybe it backfires for people who already think the "MSM" is part of a giant left-wing conspiracy, but for the rest of the country I suspect it's just dotting the i's at the end of a news cycle. On to the next story.

That may be the case, but you sure seem concerned about it several days later.

No, not concerned, just amused. I'll add an emoticon to avoid confusion. :lol: :lol:

[LL2]

I was talking with 'Joe the Plumber' yesterday. See my plumber runs a business with about 6 guys. he brings in about 1.5 million/year and takes home about 80-90K himself. He says if his taxes go up, he will 1) increase prices, and 2) lay off his newest guy (who earns about 25K as an apprentice). All I have to say, is that for the 33% of you who currently pay zero income tax and will get the 500 to 1000 dollar check from Joe the Plumber via Barack Extortion, spend that money wisely, it won't go as far and will probably have to last you until at least 2011, since you will likely lose your job. Thanks Barack!

Did you ask what his profits were? Without that critical piece of information, it is impossible to calculate what the change will actually be. The 1.5 M income is irrelevant. His personal taxes will go down, FICA will be unchanged. As a small business he will get a $500 tax credit per employee, plus additional tax credits if he provides health benefits.

Your doom and gloom economic fear-mongering is just bullshit.

My parents have a small business, and their taxes are set to go up significantly. More than enough to put a kid or two through college each year. Funny... that money could go to their kids for tuition. Instead, its going to go to joe homie so he can it on his new air force ones and new rims for his curr.

I suspect you'd feel quite differently if you made anywhere near 250k plus. It's extortion.

Unless they employ more than 75 people... I am going to call shenanigans.

I suppose you favor the trickle up poverty of Obama's plan.

[mraynrand]

Looks like the Joe the Plumber story has a few, uh, cracks in it. He's a plumber, but...he doens't have a license (required to do plumbing work in Ohio) and he owes back taxes. I bet the back taxes thing will make him even more of a hero on Fox, though.

He doesnt need a license but who cares? Most of us get the point here and he put a face on it. Secondly, the MSM has dug into this guy more in 3 days then they have Barry Whosane in 15 months!!!!

Also, what would we find about you? Or me? I think this scrutiny backfires on them.

Maybe it backfires for people who already think the "MSM" is part of a giant left-wing conspiracy, but for the rest of the country I suspect it's just dotting the i's at the end of a news cycle. On to the next story.


The point actually is that the Plumber and the details of his life really don't matter at all compared to the essence of what made the story a story - the unscripted, unvarnished, true ideology of Barack Obama - to redistribute wealth - spread that wealth around.

Even my own 'Plumber Joe' story looks like it has some cracks in it. My Plumber is a single guy with 6 total employees. He seems to think the Obama taxes will affect his ability to keep his lowest paid technician. I'm not certain - I don't know what the final result will be with tax credits for this and that (where will they come from?) and what the effect will be on his take home pay. I'm not his accountant, so I don't know for sure. I have to take his word for it - or not.

Either way, it doesn't matter. We know Obama wants to raise taxes on producers and give it away as welfare to 33% of people who pay no taxes. Pelosi wants another 300 Billion stimulus to do a lot of the same. We know what Obama believes because he got caught actually saying it, even though he's tried so hard to hide it (like calling it a 'tax cut' for 95% of people - ever hear that one?)

The over arching ideology that he's been so careful to hide (and Pelosi and Reid as well) - is that at his core, he believes in the redistribution of wealth as an end in itself - Redistribution is about 'fairness' not about doing what is best for the country (recall his view on Cap gains taxes that he expressed to Charlie Gibson - he would raise them - even if it reduced tax revenues, because it's 'fair').

So forgive me if I don't care what Plumber Joe had for breakfast, about his back taxes, or how many speeding tickets, etc. he may have had. It's irrelevant to what Barack Obama believes and will do as president.

[hoosier]

Looks like the Joe the Plumber story has a few, uh, cracks in it. He's a plumber, but...he doens't have a license (required to do plumbing work in Ohio) and he owes back taxes. I bet the back taxes thing will make him even more of a hero on Fox, though.

He doesnt need a license but who cares? Most of us get the point here and he put a face on it. Secondly, the MSM has dug into this guy more in 3 days then they have Barry Whosane in 15 months!!!!

Also, what would we find about you? Or me? I think this scrutiny backfires on them.

Maybe it backfires for people who already think the "MSM" is part of a giant left-wing conspiracy, but for the rest of the country I suspect it's just dotting the i's at the end of a news cycle. On to the next story.


The point actually is that the Plumber and the details of his life really don't matter at all compared to the essence of what made the story a story - the unscripted, unvarnished, true ideology of Barack Obama - to redistribute wealth - spread that wealth around.

Even my own 'Plumber Joe' story looks like it has some cracks in it. My Plumber is a single guy with 6 total employees. He seems to think the Obama taxes will affect his ability to keep his lowest paid technician. I'm not certain - I don't know what the final result will be with tax credits for this and that (where will they come from?) and what the effect will be on his take home pay. I'm not his accountant, so I don't know for sure. I have to take his word for it - or not.

Either way, it doesn't matter. We know Obama wants to raise taxes on producers and give it away as welfare to 33% of people who pay no taxes. Pelosi wants another 300 Billion stimulus to do a lot of the same. We know what Obama believes because he got caught actually saying it, even though he's tried so hard to hide it (like calling it a 'tax cut' for 95% of people - ever hear that one?)

The over arching ideology that he's been so careful to hide (and Pelosi and Reid as well) - is that at his core, he believes in the redistribution of wealth as an end in itself - Redistribution is about 'fairness' not about doing what is best for the country (recall his view on Cap gains taxes that he expressed to Charlie Gibson - he would raise them - even if it reduced tax revenues, because it's 'fair').

So forgive me if I don't care what Plumber Joe had for breakfast, about his back taxes, or how many speeding tickets, etc. he may have had. It's irrelevant to what Barack Obama believes and will do as president.

You're missing the point. Joe the Plumber spoke and continues to speak to the choir, that's clear. And for the same choir it's now clearer than ever that Obama is really a socialist. But, politically speaking, that changes nothing.

What's really important, from a political perspective, is that the story seemed to be acquiring wings for a short time when it also seemed to be able to speak to the unconverted, or the uncommitted voters. But that was contingent on Joe the Plumber's ability to embody virtue, and specifically the kind of virtue that conservatives want to associate with successful entrepreneurial spirit--which Obama, or so the story goes, would end up killing. But now that link--and again, its a link that has to be clear to the uncommmitted--has been broken because it's clear that Joe doesn't embody any sort of virtue.

[mraynrand]

Looks like the Joe the Plumber story has a few, uh, cracks in it. He's a plumber, but...he doens't have a license (required to do plumbing work in Ohio) and he owes back taxes. I bet the back taxes thing will make him even more of a hero on Fox, though.

He doesnt need a license but who cares? Most of us get the point here and he put a face on it. Secondly, the MSM has dug into this guy more in 3 days then they have Barry Whosane in 15 months!!!!

Also, what would we find about you? Or me? I think this scrutiny backfires on them.

Maybe it backfires for people who already think the "MSM" is part of a giant left-wing conspiracy, but for the rest of the country I suspect it's just dotting the i's at the end of a news cycle. On to the next story.


The point actually is that the Plumber and the details of his life really don't matter at all compared to the essence of what made the story a story - the unscripted, unvarnished, true ideology of Barack Obama - to redistribute wealth - spread that wealth around.

Even my own 'Plumber Joe' story looks like it has some cracks in it. My Plumber is a single guy with 6 total employees. He seems to think the Obama taxes will affect his ability to keep his lowest paid technician. I'm not certain - I don't know what the final result will be with tax credits for this and that (where will they come from?) and what the effect will be on his take home pay. I'm not his accountant, so I don't know for sure. I have to take his word for it - or not.

Either way, it doesn't matter. We know Obama wants to raise taxes on producers and give it away as welfare to 33% of people who pay no taxes. Pelosi wants another 300 Billion stimulus to do a lot of the same. We know what Obama believes because he got caught actually saying it, even though he's tried so hard to hide it (like calling it a 'tax cut' for 95% of people - ever hear that one?)

The over arching ideology that he's been so careful to hide (and Pelosi and Reid as well) - is that at his core, he believes in the redistribution of wealth as an end in itself - Redistribution is about 'fairness' not about doing what is best for the country (recall his view on Cap gains taxes that he expressed to Charlie Gibson - he would raise them - even if it reduced tax revenues, because it's 'fair').

So forgive me if I don't care what Plumber Joe had for breakfast, about his back taxes, or how many speeding tickets, etc. he may have had. It's irrelevant to what Barack Obama believes and will do as president.

You're missing the point. Joe the Plumber spoke and continues to speak to the choir, that's clear. And for the same choir it's now clearer than ever that Obama is really a socialist. But, politically speaking, that changes nothing.

What's really important, from a political perspective, is that the story seemed to be acquiring wings for a short time when it also seemed to be able to speak to the unconverted, or the uncommitted voters. But that was contingent on Joe the Plumber's ability to embody virtue, and specifically the kind of virtue that conservatives want to associate with successful entrepreneurial spirit--which Obama, or so the story goes, would end up killing. But now that link--and again, its a link that has to be clear to the uncommmitted--has been broken because it's clear that Joe doesn't embody any sort of virtue.

You sound like Joe Biden, insluting the guy because he doesn't have a license. And I completely disagree with your conclusion. Joe himself doesn't matter - only Obama's positions, revealed in his converation with Joe, matter, since all those people 'with virtue' know that Obama wants to punish them for earning money. That link is now crystal clear.

[Scott Campbell]

I suppose you favor the trickle up poverty of Obama's plan.


That's both funny, and scary.

[hoosier]

Looks like the Joe the Plumber story has a few, uh, cracks in it. He's a plumber, but...he doens't have a license (required to do plumbing work in Ohio) and he owes back taxes. I bet the back taxes thing will make him even more of a hero on Fox, though.

He doesnt need a license but who cares? Most of us get the point here and he put a face on it. Secondly, the MSM has dug into this guy more in 3 days then they have Barry Whosane in 15 months!!!!

Also, what would we find about you? Or me? I think this scrutiny backfires on them.

Maybe it backfires for people who already think the "MSM" is part of a giant left-wing conspiracy, but for the rest of the country I suspect it's just dotting the i's at the end of a news cycle. On to the next story.


The point actually is that the Plumber and the details of his life really don't matter at all compared to the essence of what made the story a story - the unscripted, unvarnished, true ideology of Barack Obama - to redistribute wealth - spread that wealth around.

Even my own 'Plumber Joe' story looks like it has some cracks in it. My Plumber is a single guy with 6 total employees. He seems to think the Obama taxes will affect his ability to keep his lowest paid technician. I'm not certain - I don't know what the final result will be with tax credits for this and that (where will they come from?) and what the effect will be on his take home pay. I'm not his accountant, so I don't know for sure. I have to take his word for it - or not.

Either way, it doesn't matter. We know Obama wants to raise taxes on producers and give it away as welfare to 33% of people who pay no taxes. Pelosi wants another 300 Billion stimulus to do a lot of the same. We know what Obama believes because he got caught actually saying it, even though he's tried so hard to hide it (like calling it a 'tax cut' for 95% of people - ever hear that one?)

The over arching ideology that he's been so careful to hide (and Pelosi and Reid as well) - is that at his core, he believes in the redistribution of wealth as an end in itself - Redistribution is about 'fairness' not about doing what is best for the country (recall his view on Cap gains taxes that he expressed to Charlie Gibson - he would raise them - even if it reduced tax revenues, because it's 'fair').

So forgive me if I don't care what Plumber Joe had for breakfast, about his back taxes, or how many speeding tickets, etc. he may have had. It's irrelevant to what Barack Obama believes and will do as president.

You're missing the point. Joe the Plumber spoke and continues to speak to the choir, that's clear. And for the same choir it's now clearer than ever that Obama is really a socialist. But, politically speaking, that changes nothing.

What's really important, from a political perspective, is that the story seemed to be acquiring wings for a short time when it also seemed to be able to speak to the unconverted, or the uncommitted voters. But that was contingent on Joe the Plumber's ability to embody virtue, and specifically the kind of virtue that conservatives want to associate with successful entrepreneurial spirit--which Obama, or so the story goes, would end up killing. But now that link--and again, its a link that has to be clear to the uncommmitted--has been broken because it's clear that Joe doesn't embody any sort of virtue.

You sound like Joe Biden, insluting the guy because he doesn't have a license. And I completely disagree with your conclusion. Joe himself doesn't matter - only Obama's positions, revealed in his converation with Joe, matter, since all those people 'with virtue' know that Obama wants to punish them for earning money. That link is now crystal clear.

I don't think it's so clear. If the guy is really netting >250K per year then he's not your typical up and coming entrepreneur, and if he's netting significantly less--like most plumbers--then he wouldn't be subject to a tax increase under Obama's plan. Again, the power of this story hinges on our seeing Joe as virtuous in his averageness. If he ceases to be virtuous or average then I think the story loses some of its political vitality.

On second thought, it occurs to me that maybe your real point is that Obama let slip the words "spread the wealth" and that THAT is where he got himself nailed. If that's your argument I think it's a silly one. "Spread the wealth" may sound socialistic to the Right, but to average Americans in the midst of an economic crisis I think those words either have appeal or, at worst, no negative or postive effect at all.

EDIT: by saying Joe ain't virtuous I'm not insulting him at all, I'm just saying that the idealization of Joe as everyman doesn't hold water. Joe's virtue has to compete with some warts that not everybody would be so willing to dismiss as irrelevant.

[retailguy]

What's really important, from a political perspective, is that the story seemed to be acquiring wings for a short time

Agreed, and at the core, that's why we know about Joe today. Joe's point, (which is not refutable) threatened to hijack the direction of this election.

In this country, that means, discredit the loudmouth. The same way 30 lawyers were dropped into Anchorage, a couple of folks "rounded up" the dirt on Joe, to discredit him, and thusly, his point.

Sad commentary, but that is today's politics. The little guy needs to keep his mouth shut and conform, or else, he will be DESTROYED.

[mraynrand]

"Spread the wealth" may sound socialistic to the Right, but to average Americans in the midst of an economic crisis I think those words either have appeal or, at worst, no negative or postive effect at all.

I saw a poll where about 80+ percent reacted negatively to this phrase. I just disagree with you. People understand what Welfare is and how it works. People understand this phrase as Obama meant it, they understand that it is conceptually similar to other Obama policies (like Cap gains), and they understand Pelosi and Reid are ALREADY preparing legislation for 300 Billion more like it. These moves aren't aimed at improving the economy - they are aimed at an egalitarian 'fairness' a Robin Hood like appropriation and transfer of money to try to even everyone out. People react negatively to it because they understand that some people will be less successful not because of unfairness, but because of choice.

Americans believe in spreading their wealth, if they have it (and even if they have very little) - voluntarily. Americans understand that they must contribute to society, and they are even willing to tolerate a progressive tax because they know some luck is involved in getting wealthy. But they know what Obama means by 'spread the wealth' - and that's a direct transfer of dollars - not a tax cut, not increased opportunity, but Welfare, plain and simple.

[retailguy]

Ayn - That's why they dug the dirt out on Joe. To divert the discussion by discrediting the person who made the point.

Wondering today if it works.

[mraynrand]

Ayn - That's why they dug the dirt out on Joe. To divert the discussion by discrediting the person who made the point.

Wondering today if it works.

I agree. Diversion and personal attacks. Still, Joe the Plumber didn't make any point. He drew out Obama, and Obama revealed himself. That's why I think Joe the Plumber won't go away because people find out what the balance is on his VISA card. Because after Keith Olberman gets out of his colon, and tires of accusing him of masturbating or some other such vulgarity, Obama's words and ideology will remain.

[arcilite]

I thought Wisconsin was a blue state. After reading through this thread and many others here on Packerrats, I feel as if this board is more...conservative. Which is unusual. Usually the liberals are the ones all over the internet.


/just my $.02

[mraynrand]

I thought Wisconsin was a blue state. After reading through this thread and many others here on Packerrats, I feel as if this board is more...conservative. Which is unusual. Usually the liberals are the ones all over the internet.


/just my $.02

I don't live in Wisconsin. I live right next door to Joe the Plumber, Jive Turkey, Dick Tracy, and Mary Poppins.

[hoosier]

"Spread the wealth" may sound socialistic to the Right, but to average Americans in the midst of an economic crisis I think those words either have appeal or, at worst, no negative or postive effect at all.

I saw a poll where about 80+ percent reacted negatively to this phrase. I just disagree with you. People understand what Welfare is and how it works. People understand this phrase as Obama meant it, they understand that it is conceptually similar to other Obama policies (like Cap gains), and they understand Pelosi and Reid are ALREADY preparing legislation for 300 Billion more like it. These moves aren't aimed at improving the economy - they are aimed at an egalitarian 'fairness' a Robin Hood like appropriation and transfer of money to try to even everyone out. People react negatively to it because they understand that some people will be less successful not because of unfairness, but because of choice.

Americans believe in spreading their wealth, if they have it (and even if they have very little) - voluntarily. Americans understand that they must contribute to society, and they are even willing to tolerate a progressive tax because they know some luck is involved in getting wealthy. But they know what Obama means by 'spread the wealth' - and that's a direct transfer of dollars - not a tax cut, not increased opportunity, but Welfare, plain and simple.

You're right, we disagree. I haven't seen any polling of how people heard "spread the wealth" (post it if you have it) but my gut tells me that most who are middle-of-the-road and left heard "progressive taxation" and that most on the right heard "socialism."

[sheepshead]

I thought Wisconsin was a blue state. After reading through this thread and many others here on Packerrats, I feel as if this board is more...conservative. Which is unusual. Usually the liberals are the ones all over the internet.


/just my $.02

15000 vote and 7500 votes. In addition voter fraud convictions in Milwaukee and Racine after each election.

[mraynrand]

You're right, we disagree. I haven't seen any polling of how people heard "spread the wealth" (post it if you have it) but my gut tells me that most who are middle-of-the-road and left heard "progressive taxation" and that most on the right heard "socialism."

I'll post it if I find it. I also doubt that for most middle-of-the-road people "progressive taxation," popped into their head when they heard "Spread the wealth around," especially since the guy across the rope line is not a rich guy sitting on a pile of cash - especially coupled with all the hand outs Barack is promising. But the voters will tell me if I'm wrong. I see this issue as not only the fulcrum of this election, but the fulcrum of our nation to come. Are we to be a 'welfare, spread the wealth around by government' kind of a nation, or are we to be a nation in which the government gets out of the way and works to promote opportunity. I think when Obama says 'spread the wealth around' most middle-of-the-road people are not only clinging to their guns and religion, but are also reflexively clinging to their wallets and purses.

[mraynrand]

Not exactly how I characterized it, but close:

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2107774/posts?page=8

"Americans Oppose Income Redistribution to Fix Economy

by Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist

PRINCETON, NJ -- When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today's consumer, Americans overwhelmingly -- by 84% to 13% -- prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.

Lack of Support for Wealth Redistribution Spans Political Party, Income Groups

Americans' lack of support for redistributing wealth to fix the economy spans political parties: Republicans (by 90% to 9%) prefer that the government focus on improving the economy, as do independents (by 85% to 13%) and Democrats (by 77% to 19%). This sentiment also extends across income groups: upper-income Americans prefer that the government focus on improving the economy and jobs by 88% to 10%, concurring with middle-income (83% to 16%) and lower-income (78% to 17%) Americans.

(Excerpt) Read more at gallup.com ..."

[Freak Out]

Not exactly how I characterized it, but close:

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2107774/posts?page=8

"Americans Oppose Income Redistribution to Fix Economy

by Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist

PRINCETON, NJ -- When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today's consumer, Americans overwhelmingly -- by 84% to 13% -- prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.

Lack of Support for Wealth Redistribution Spans Political Party, Income Groups

Americans' lack of support for redistributing wealth to fix the economy spans political parties: Republicans (by 90% to 9%) prefer that the government focus on improving the economy, as do independents (by 85% to 13%) and Democrats (by 77% to 19%). This sentiment also extends across income groups: upper-income Americans prefer that the government focus on improving the economy and jobs by 88% to 10%, concurring with middle-income (83% to 16%) and lower-income (78% to 17%) Americans.

(Excerpt) Read more at gallup.com ..."

This is always a good sign. The Robin hood approach can be very appealing but there are far better ways to "fix the economy".

[retailguy]

The problem is that Robin Hood leads the polls by 4%.....

[LL2]

The problem is that Robin Hood leads the polls by 4%.....

I thought he was up by 6-8% in most polls...is he slipping?

[mraynrand]

The problem is that Robin Hood leads the polls by 4%.....

Is that because the public doesn't know about Friar Tuck?

http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/18/jeremiah_wright.jpg

[mraynrand]

Seems like a regular guy. Nice dog too.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/17/us/17joe.600.jpg

[arcilite]

Not trying to stir the pot. But Im getting the feeling you all are against Obama's tax policy because he taxes the 'very rich' more compared to those less fortunate. And you also have a problem with how he wants to expand welfare programs.


Just a few thing I have been thinking about:

1. I have grown up with the line of though, the more money I make, the more I will pay in taxes.

What is wrong with that?

2. What is wrong with welfare systems? Everyone compalins about the 'teenagers and people just poppin out babies to get more checks' But that is at the very end of the spectrum. There are some really good programs out there, and some of my relatives are on them, I would love them to see more funding.

[LL2]

Not trying to stir the pot. But Im getting the feeling you all are against Obama's tax policy because he taxes the 'very rich' more compared to those less fortunate. And you also have a problem with how he wants to expand welfare programs.


Just a few thing I have been thinking about:

1. I have grown up with the line of though, the more money I make, the more I will pay in taxes.

What is wrong with that?

2. What is wrong with welfare systems? Everyone compalins about the 'teenagers and people just poppin out babies to get more checks' But that is at the very end of the spectrum. There are some really good programs out there, and some of my relatives are on them, I would love them to see more funding.

Point #1 - Yes, the more you make you will pay more in taxes, but fairness should be based on the percentage rate.

Point #2 - Nothing wrong with the right welfare programs, but wouldn't you want to see your relatives get off of them.

[arcilite]

Not trying to stir the pot. But Im getting the feeling you all are against Obama's tax policy because he taxes the 'very rich' more compared to those less fortunate. And you also have a problem with how he wants to expand welfare programs.


Just a few thing I have been thinking about:

1. I have grown up with the line of though, the more money I make, the more I will pay in taxes.

What is wrong with that?

2. What is wrong with welfare systems? Everyone compalins about the 'teenagers and people just poppin out babies to get more checks' But that is at the very end of the spectrum. There are some really good programs out there, and some of my relatives are on them, I would love them to see more funding.

Point #1 - Yes, the more you make you will pay more in taxes, but fairness should be based on the percentage rate.

Point #2 - Nothing wrong with the right welfare programs, but wouldn't you want to see your relatives get off of them.

Back to #1. A percentage rate just would not work. That is a regressive tax. It hurts the less wealthy more.

#2. Yes I want to see them off them. But getting rid of the programs or decreasing their value is not the way to do it.

[retailguy]

Arcilite,

How much is too much? seriously. at some point "taxing the wealthy" doesn't work any longer. Why should I bust my ass to make money to give it all to the Gov't? I might as well retire, and live off my earnings to control my tax burden.

When Carter was in office the highest marginal rate was approaching 70%, I believe. When Reagan got into office he sliced the tax rates to a maximum of 28%, or 33% with the deduction recapture, and tax revenues went UP. Why? Because the rich went back to working.

The rich are a funny breed Arcilite. They're all about making money. For most of them, it's a trophy, and accomplishment. Some also take great pride in providing jobs, and teaching others to achieve what they have achieved. Still others take great pride in giving it away. Let the few who don't keep it, it isn't really any different from some of the poor, some of which WANT to be that way and don't want help.... We should let those people be as well.

This class warfare stuff is so stupid. If you continue to think of the world as a "zero sum game" as Obama does, then well, that's what you get. If you get your ass out of the way and let those who know how to do something, do it, then EVERYONE benefits.

Currently, the top 50% of income earners pay the vast majority of Federal Income Taxes. It already is progressive. No need to make it worse. No need at all. They already ARE paying more, and enough is enough.

[arcilite]

Arcilite,

How much is too much? seriously. at some point "taxing the wealthy" doesn't work any longer. Why should I bust my ass to make money to give it all to the Gov't? I might as well retire, and live off my earnings to control my tax burden.

When Carter was in office the highest marginal rate was approaching 70%, I believe. When Reagan got into office he sliced the tax rates to a maximum of 28%, or 33% with the deduction recapture, and tax revenues went UP. Why? Because the rich went back to working.

The rich are a funny breed Arcilite. They're all about making money. For most of them, it's a trophy, and accomplishment. Some also take great pride in providing jobs, and teaching others to achieve what they have achieved. Still others take great pride in giving it away. Let the few who don't keep it, it isn't really any different from some of the poor, some of which WANT to be that way and don't want help.... We should let those people be as well.

This class warfare stuff is so stupid. If you continue to think of the world as a "zero sum game" as Obama does, then well, that's what you get. If you get your ass out of the way and let those who know how to do something, do it, then EVERYONE benefits.

Currently, the top 50% of income earners pay the vast majority of Federal Income Taxes. It already is progressive. No need to make it worse. No need at all. They already ARE paying more, and enough is enough.


Well in a perfect world that is awesome. But someone has to pay taxes. And right now the lower-middle class people are hurting so it is time to shift some of that burden to the upper class.

[sheepshead]

Arcilite,

How much is too much? seriously. at some point "taxing the wealthy" doesn't work any longer. Why should I bust my ass to make money to give it all to the Gov't? I might as well retire, and live off my earnings to control my tax burden.

When Carter was in office the highest marginal rate was approaching 70%, I believe. When Reagan got into office he sliced the tax rates to a maximum of 28%, or 33% with the deduction recapture, and tax revenues went UP. Why? Because the rich went back to working.

The rich are a funny breed Arcilite. They're all about making money. For most of them, it's a trophy, and accomplishment. Some also take great pride in providing jobs, and teaching others to achieve what they have achieved. Still others take great pride in giving it away. Let the few who don't keep it, it isn't really any different from some of the poor, some of which WANT to be that way and don't want help.... We should let those people be as well.

This class warfare stuff is so stupid. If you continue to think of the world as a "zero sum game" as Obama does, then well, that's what you get. If you get your ass out of the way and let those who know how to do something, do it, then EVERYONE benefits.

Currently, the top 50% of income earners pay the vast majority of Federal Income Taxes. It already is progressive. No need to make it worse. No need at all. They already ARE paying more, and enough is enough.


Well in a perfect world that is awesome. But someone has to pay taxes. And right now the lower-middle class people are hurting so it is time to shift some of that burden to the upper class.

How much federal income tax does a middle class family, say making 75k, interest deductions, 2-3 kids, medical deductions, etc? How much is their fed income tax bill? Id say less than $1000. We all need to pay something wouldnt you agree. Below that income range they pay nothing. It's typical democrat election year bunk, designed to get them in power. I dont think it's going to work this time.

[arcilite]

Arcilite,

How much is too much? seriously. at some point "taxing the wealthy" doesn't work any longer. Why should I bust my ass to make money to give it all to the Gov't? I might as well retire, and live off my earnings to control my tax burden.

When Carter was in office the highest marginal rate was approaching 70%, I believe. When Reagan got into office he sliced the tax rates to a maximum of 28%, or 33% with the deduction recapture, and tax revenues went UP. Why? Because the rich went back to working.

The rich are a funny breed Arcilite. They're all about making money. For most of them, it's a trophy, and accomplishment. Some also take great pride in providing jobs, and teaching others to achieve what they have achieved. Still others take great pride in giving it away. Let the few who don't keep it, it isn't really any different from some of the poor, some of which WANT to be that way and don't want help.... We should let those people be as well.

This class warfare stuff is so stupid. If you continue to think of the world as a "zero sum game" as Obama does, then well, that's what you get. If you get your ass out of the way and let those who know how to do something, do it, then EVERYONE benefits.

Currently, the top 50% of income earners pay the vast majority of Federal Income Taxes. It already is progressive. No need to make it worse. No need at all. They already ARE paying more, and enough is enough.


Well in a perfect world that is awesome. But someone has to pay taxes. And right now the lower-middle class people are hurting so it is time to shift some of that burden to the upper class.

How much federal income tax does a middle class family, say making 75k, interest deductions, 2-3 kids, medical deductions, etc? How much is their fed income tax bill? Id say less than $1000. We all need to pay something wouldnt you agree. Below that income range they pay nothing. It's typical democrat election year bunk, designed to get them in power. I dont think it's going to work this time.


Exactly.

Which is why people that make more than them pay more money.

I don't see what the deal is.

[GoPackGo]

To me the scariest of the tax issue is raising taxes on big business. Obama repeatly brings up Exxon oil company. If you raise the taxes they pay, they will pass that tax hike onto everyone in the country who uses oil. Gas prices will go up for you and I. Gas prices will go up for every company who uses gas. Every company who uses gas will pass that cost onto the consumer of their product, you. In the end the little low and middle class people end up paying more money for gas and the products they buy.
Raising the taxes on businesses can also cause businesses to panic and lay people off. Either way, the low and middle class is going to get screwed by raising taxes, either out of their money or their jobs.

[texaspackerbacker]

Arcilite, you provided a civil and rational argument in favor of progressive taxation. The only factual disagreement I have is where you stated that taxing the rich "equally", percentage-wise, is "regressive" because it "doesn't hurt them as much". That's definitely NOT the definition of regressive tax. Regressive would, of course, be having lower levels of income pay a HIGHER percentage.

Just as obviously, we already have a PROGRESSIVE tax system--and unless you're over a hundred years old, THAT is what you grew up with.

What Obama is proposing goes way beyond mere progressive taxation--which even the most staunch conservatives grudgingly accept these days. He wants to go back to the pre-Reagan days of CONFISCATORY taxes and redistribution of wealth, which even putting the fairness argument aside, would have a very deleterious effect on the economy, and which would end up harming everybody. You need only to consider the Jimmy Carter years--which culminated two decades of Obama-esque policies.

[arcilite]

Arcilite, you provided a civil and rational argument in favor of progressive taxation. The only factual disagreement I have is where you stated that taxing the rich "equally", percentage-wise, is "regressive" because it "doesn't hurt them as much". That's definitely NOT the definition of regressive tax. Regressive would, of course, be having lower levels of income pay a HIGHER percentage.


I didn't say that. Having a percentage tax (I understood it as meaning a flat tax rate) hurts the less wealthy MUCH MORE than it does anyone else. The flat tax will raise income inequality and create a wider gap between the richer and the poor. Something that (if your on the rich side, is not bad at all) does not help advance society.

[sheepshead]

Arcilite,

How much is too much? seriously. at some point "taxing the wealthy" doesn't work any longer. Why should I bust my ass to make money to give it all to the Gov't? I might as well retire, and live off my earnings to control my tax burden.

When Carter was in office the highest marginal rate was approaching 70%, I believe. When Reagan got into office he sliced the tax rates to a maximum of 28%, or 33% with the deduction recapture, and tax revenues went UP. Why? Because the rich went back to working.

The rich are a funny breed Arcilite. They're all about making money. For most of them, it's a trophy, and accomplishment. Some also take great pride in providing jobs, and teaching others to achieve what they have achieved. Still others take great pride in giving it away. Let the few who don't keep it, it isn't really any different from some of the poor, some of which WANT to be that way and don't want help.... We should let those people be as well.

This class warfare stuff is so stupid. If you continue to think of the world as a "zero sum game" as Obama does, then well, that's what you get. If you get your ass out of the way and let those who know how to do something, do it, then EVERYONE benefits.

Currently, the top 50% of income earners pay the vast majority of Federal Income Taxes. It already is progressive. No need to make it worse. No need at all. They already ARE paying more, and enough is enough.


Well in a perfect world that is awesome. But someone has to pay taxes. And right now the lower-middle class people are hurting so it is time to shift some of that burden to the upper class.

How much federal income tax does a middle class family, say making 75k, interest deductions, 2-3 kids, medical deductions, etc? How much is their fed income tax bill? Id say less than $1000. We all need to pay something wouldnt you agree. Below that income range they pay nothing. It's typical democrat election year bunk, designed to get them in power. I dont think it's going to work this time.


Exactly.

Which is why people that make more than them pay more money.

I don't see what the deal is.




http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html
They do, always have , always will.

[texaspackerbacker]

Arcilite, you provided a civil and rational argument in favor of progressive taxation. The only factual disagreement I have is where you stated that taxing the rich "equally", percentage-wise, is "regressive" because it "doesn't hurt them as much". That's definitely NOT the definition of regressive tax. Regressive would, of course, be having lower levels of income pay a HIGHER percentage.


I didn't say that. Having a percentage tax (I understood it as meaning a flat tax rate) hurts the less wealthy MUCH MORE than it does anyone else. The flat tax will raise income inequality and create a wider gap between the richer and the poor. Something that (if your on the rich side, is not bad at all) does not help advance society.

This line is extracted from your post earlier on this page: "That is a regressive tax. It hurts the less wealthy more."

You may well be right in saying that flat tax hurts the lower levels more than the upper levels (although most of the specific flat tax programs out there have provisions to protect low income people), but my point is simply, you are wrong in calling that "regressive"--a word which has a different meaning altogether than "who it hurts most".

[arcilite]

Arcilite, you provided a civil and rational argument in favor of progressive taxation. The only factual disagreement I have is where you stated that taxing the rich "equally", percentage-wise, is "regressive" because it "doesn't hurt them as much". That's definitely NOT the definition of regressive tax. Regressive would, of course, be having lower levels of income pay a HIGHER percentage.


I didn't say that. Having a percentage tax (I understood it as meaning a flat tax rate) hurts the less wealthy MUCH MORE than it does anyone else. The flat tax will raise income inequality and create a wider gap between the richer and the poor. Something that (if your on the rich side, is not bad at all) does not help advance society.

This line is extracted from your post earlier on this page: "That is a regressive tax. It hurts the less wealthy more."

You may well be right in saying that flat tax hurts the lower levels more than the upper levels (although most of the specific flat tax programs out there have provisions to protect low income people), but my point is simply, you are wrong in calling that "regressive"--a word which has a different meaning altogether than "who it hurts most".

If the people who have lower income levels pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes compared to the wealthy, how is that not regressive?

[texaspackerbacker]

If the tax is "flat", they AREN'T paying a higher percentage--merely the SAME percentage--and as I said, most of thse programs have some sort of progressivity built in where anybody below some level pays nothing at all.

[arcilite]

If the tax is "flat", they AREN'T paying a higher percentage--merely the SAME percentage--and as I said, most of thse programs have some sort of progressivity built in where anybody below some level pays nothing at all.

See, thats where you need to do some critical thinking.


I know they are paying the same percentage.

Lets take someone earning 30k versus someone earning 300k.

Someone earning 30k has to spend 15k a year on misc stuff to get by.

300k has a more lavish lifestyle and will spend 30k on misc stuff to get by.

At a tax rate of 30% the 30k person spends 4.5k in taxes which is 15% of their salary.

At a tax rate of 30% the 300k person spends 9k in taxes which is 3% of their salary.


Which is how I get to the point that those who earn less, will spend a larger portion of their income paying taxes.

This is just a rough example. I understand there are ways to help out those who earn less. But won't that fall into your 'Robin Hood' argument which this forum seems to be hating on Obama for?

Also it will be nearly impossible to implement such a tax system in the U.S. this day in age anyways.

[mraynrand]

Lets take someone earning 30k versus someone earning 300k.

Someone earning 30k has to spend 15k a year on misc stuff to get by.

300k has a more lavish lifestyle and will spend 30k on misc stuff to get by.

At a tax rate of 30% the 30k person spends 4.5k in taxes which is 15% of their salary.

At a tax rate of 30% the 300k person spends 9k in taxes which is 3% of their salary.



Check your math.

[gex]

Well after reading these and other arguments for the last few weeks/months, I have changed my mind and will vote for Obama.

After Obama beat Hillary I was all for Mcain, but the only thing I ever hear from Mcain/repub voters is "my money, my money, me,me,me"
Enough is enough, its time to start ponying up for anybody who makes more than $90,000/yr.

Most people around here raise families on between $30-75,000/yr. and the ones making $75 are considered to be living the good life.

You people(greedy) may not like it, but Obama's gettin in and its gonna happen. Time to start taking care of each other as a whole society.

Btw, people making less than $50,000 working in retail and service are on their feet working their asses off for 10-14 hr shifts. Thats who I'm voting for. 8-)

[texaspackerbacker]

Lets take someone earning 30k versus someone earning 300k.

Someone earning 30k has to spend 15k a year on misc stuff to get by.

300k has a more lavish lifestyle and will spend 30k on misc stuff to get by.

At a tax rate of 30% the 30k person spends 4.5k in taxes which is 15% of their salary.

At a tax rate of 30% the 300k person spends 9k in taxes which is 3% of their salary.



Check your math.

Yeah, 30% of 30,000 (heaven forbid we ever have a tax rate THAT high) is 9,000. 30% of 300,000 is 90,000.

Ten times the income/ten times the tax--FLAT.

[Scott Campbell]

If the tax is "flat", they AREN'T paying a higher percentage--merely the SAME percentage--and as I said, most of thse programs have some sort of progressivity built in where anybody below some level pays nothing at all.

See, thats where you need to do some critical thinking.


I know they are paying the same percentage.

Lets take someone earning 30k versus someone earning 300k.

Someone earning 30k has to spend 15k a year on misc stuff to get by.

300k has a more lavish lifestyle and will spend 30k on misc stuff to get by.

At a tax rate of 30% the 30k person spends 4.5k in taxes which is 15% of their salary.

At a tax rate of 30% the 300k person spends 9k in taxes which is 3% of their salary.


Which is how I get to the point that those who earn less, will spend a larger portion of their income paying taxes.

This is just a rough example. I understand there are ways to help out those who earn less. But won't that fall into your 'Robin Hood' argument which this forum seems to be hating on Obama for?

Also it will be nearly impossible to implement such a tax system in the U.S. this day in age anyways.


Why should any man have to pay more than the next? Should the rich have to pay $12/gallon of gas while the poor pay$3?

If that's the case, then I think everyone should get one vote for each dollar of tax they contribute to this country.

Poor people don't contribute as much (at least economically) to society as more successful people do.

[arcilite]

Lets take someone earning 30k versus someone earning 300k.

Someone earning 30k has to spend 15k a year on misc stuff to get by.

300k has a more lavish lifestyle and will spend 30k on misc stuff to get by.

At a tax rate of 30% the 30k person spends 4.5k in taxes which is 15% of their salary.

At a tax rate of 30% the 300k person spends 9k in taxes which is 3% of their salary.



Check your math.


hahah thanks. I messed that one up big time.

[GoPackGo]

Why should any man have to pay more than the next? Should the rich have to pay $12/gallon of gas while the poor pay$3?

If that's the case, then I think everyone should get one vote for each dollar of tax they contribute to this country.

Poor people don't contribute as much (at least economically) to society as more successful people do.

Its pretty hard to argue with that logic

[mraynrand]

Well after reading these and other arguments for the last few weeks/months, I have changed my mind and will vote for Obama.

After Obama beat Hillary I was all for Mcain, but the only thing I ever hear from Mcain/repub voters is "my money, my money, me,me,me"
Enough is enough, its time to start ponying up for anybody who makes more than $90,000/yr.

Most people around here raise families on between $30-75,000/yr. and the ones making $75 are considered to be living the good life.

You people(greedy) may not like it, but Obama's gettin in and its gonna happen. Time to start taking care of each other as a whole society.

Btw, people making less than $50,000 working in retail and service are on their feet working their asses off for 10-14 hr shifts. Thats who I'm voting for. 8-)

A few questions:

Why 90K?

If 75K is considered the 'good life,' then why do they need more from 90K folks?

What is your definition of greedy?

You claim that all you ever hear from repubs is my money, etc. What about Joe the Plumber? It seems like every conservative has been fighting for HIS money - so that he can keep it and use it to hire OTHER people and grow the economy. Even if we're totally wrong about the economics, Isn't it wrong to say that all we care about is 'MY money?'

Why does the government have to be employed to redistribute monies? Conservatives of all economic classes donate more in time and money than liberals. If you take away money from conservatives, who will donate?

[retailguy]

Well after reading these and other arguments for the last few weeks/months, I have changed my mind and will vote for Obama.

After Obama beat Hillary I was all for Mcain, but the only thing I ever hear from Mcain/repub voters is "my money, my money, me,me,me"
Enough is enough, its time to start ponying up for anybody who makes more than $90,000/yr.

Most people around here raise families on between $30-75,000/yr. and the ones making $75 are considered to be living the good life.

You people(greedy) may not like it, but Obama's gettin in and its gonna happen. Time to start taking care of each other as a whole society.

Btw, people making less than $50,000 working in retail and service are on their feet working their asses off for 10-14 hr shifts. Thats who I'm voting for. 8-)

This is probably one of the most uninformed posts related to government and financial matters that I've ever read.

Do you think that I just got things handed to me in my life? :shock:

For heavens sake. My father was a beautician and my mother was a housewife. My parents paid $18k for their first house in 1976, and I worked my ASS off in school for scholarships. I spent $60k on a bachelors degree from the University of Wisconsin, and well in excess of $100k for a Masters degree from Columbia. I studied and studied and studied to pass the CPA exam.

Then, I quit my job in the oil industry and opened a retail store. I grew three concept retail stores from one little mall kiosk to 14 stores in 5 years working 70+ hours a week including weekends and holidays. I put up with countless hours of crap from uninformed people, and hired those very uneducated workers you talked about Gex. 3 weeks after they were working for me, they thought they knew how to run my business better than I did. After 7 years of that, I sold the business, and made a down payment on a tax practice.

I ran that practice jointly with a parter for 5 years, and we doubled the size of that practice, working an average of 80 hours per week. When I sold back to my partner, we were doing more tax returns out of tax season than we were during it....

I moved my family half way across the country so my wife could attend law school. She's in her third year, and will graduate in May 2009. We will spend in excess of $125k on her law school education. This doesn't include the costs of her bachelors degree and her masters degree.

So, considering your rant from above, I'm GREEDY? WTF?

I'm not "entitled" to keep what I earned and what I risked? Are you crazy? Maybe you should move to Switzerland, or Denmark. wealth redistribution seems to work out ok over there.

I give more to charity each year than I made annually my first three years out of school. I tithe faithfully to my church. I volunteer my time in Christian and non Christian events in my community. I'm a 10 gallon blood donor. I serve on local boards. And I'M GREEDY? <sigh>

You sir, are completely NUTS. If the rest of the world feels like you do, yes, we're screwed. But if you, and the rest of the $50k wage earners would get OFF THEIR ASS instead of looking for a damn handout, we might get somewhere in this country.

Christ. I'm off my soapbox now. :roll:

[Scott Campbell]

So, considering your rant from above, I'm GREEDY? WTF?



No, based on the rant from above you're stupid. Why would you want to make such a large and foolish investment. You two should have just gotten mindless retail jobs and sucked off the government tit like all the other lazy under performers who are about to cash in on the Obama presidency.

Or so they think.

[mraynrand]

government tit .

MMMMMmmmmmm...Government Tit. My one weakness! D'oh!

http://blog.menupirate.com/images/drooling_homer.png

[Partial]

Arcilite,

How much is too much? seriously. at some point "taxing the wealthy" doesn't work any longer. Why should I bust my ass to make money to give it all to the Gov't? I might as well retire, and live off my earnings to control my tax burden.

When Carter was in office the highest marginal rate was approaching 70%, I believe. When Reagan got into office he sliced the tax rates to a maximum of 28%, or 33% with the deduction recapture, and tax revenues went UP. Why? Because the rich went back to working.

The rich are a funny breed Arcilite. They're all about making money. For most of them, it's a trophy, and accomplishment. Some also take great pride in providing jobs, and teaching others to achieve what they have achieved. Still others take great pride in giving it away. Let the few who don't keep it, it isn't really any different from some of the poor, some of which WANT to be that way and don't want help.... We should let those people be as well.

This class warfare stuff is so stupid. If you continue to think of the world as a "zero sum game" as Obama does, then well, that's what you get. If you get your ass out of the way and let those who know how to do something, do it, then EVERYONE benefits.

Currently, the top 50% of income earners pay the vast majority of Federal Income Taxes. It already is progressive. No need to make it worse. No need at all. They already ARE paying more, and enough is enough.


Well in a perfect world that is awesome. But someone has to pay taxes. And right now the lower-middle class people are hurting so it is time to shift some of that burden to the upper class.

If the middle class people are hurting, maybe they should get a second job. Do you think these people making 250k+ made it to that level by working 8 hours a day? I sure don't.

[MJZiggy]

Ok, I've just read this whole thing and I have a couple things. Joe the Plumber's biggest problem is not that the is an unlicensed plumber. (well HIS biggest problem likely is because Ohio will likely frown on him working in a licensed field without a license so he probably screwed himself.) After I managed to miss the debate I went online to try and get clips and ran across a Katie Couric interview with him and she and her gotcha questions asked old Joe if he happened to make $250K a year. Joe said no. She said you realize that this tax increase doesn't affect you, right? To which Joe said, "Well....uhhhh....but what if that $250K becomes 100K? How do we know he won't do that??? (Because when the top 5% of earners in the country make only $100K we have bigger problems than Joe.) Obama isn't touting an income dollar figure as much as he's offering a figure representing a percentage of population. I think he's referring to the top 5 and attaching a $250K number to represent them. If he lowers the number to represent the top 20% then he loses the next election.

Second, redistribution of wealth? GIVING the money to people who make less? Isn't this tax going to fund crazy shit like a WAR??? And crumbling infrastructure??? And Federal prisons?? And Social Security? I don't recall Obama saying he was gonna take Scott's check and hand it to Harlan. The government still needs to function and Obama's point is that it should be the ones who are most able should be the ones to help out most. And I don't want to hear any BS about entitlements while McCain is talking about buying out people's mortgages for them at full price and for more than their houses are worth. McCain also hasn't said how he plans to fund this one...I think Scott's check would likely go for that one. At the same time McCain is calling for a spending freeze because government spending is out of control. It is, but you've just offered to buy out millions of bad mortgages...and to what benefit to those who struggled to stay in their houses?

I'm thinking McCain is secretly sporting a government D-cup...

[retailguy]

And so, the mis-information starts. Joe is unlicensed because he doesn't need a license, because he works with and for a licensed plumber. That is legal in Ohio.

The fact that Joe "supposedly" isn't affected by this tax increase is not relevant. The fact that his brain sees through the sham, IS relevant. The fact that it is relevant is why we know that Joe is "unlicensed" and hasn't paid his property taxes. If that isn't enough to get "society" talking about something else, we'll find out that Joe doesn't like cats or did something stupid when he was drunk and 16.

Oh, and Ziggy, do you remember a guy by the name of Bill Clinton. Yes, you must, but, way far back in 1992, he "tried as hard as he could" but he just had to raise the middle class taxes, with the single largest increase in history....

It remains to be seen, just "how hard" Barack will work to keep his word.

McCain? Barack lite. It'd be "better" but still not great. McCain is the "lesser of two evils".

[MJZiggy]

And so, the mis-information starts. Joe is unlicensed because he doesn't need a license, because he works with and for a licensed plumber. That is legal in Ohio.

The fact that Joe "supposedly" isn't affected by this tax increase is not relevant. The fact that his brain sees through the sham, IS relevant. The fact that it is relevant is why we know that Joe is "unlicensed" and hasn't paid his property taxes. If that isn't enough to get "society" talking about something else, we'll find out that Joe doesn't like cats or did something stupid when he was drunk and 16.

Oh, and Ziggy, do you remember a guy by the name of Bill Clinton. Yes, you must, but, way far back in 1992, he "tried as hard as he could" but he just had to raise the middle class taxes, with the single largest increase in history....

It remains to be seen, just "how hard" Barack will work to keep his word.

McCain? Barack lite. It'd be "better" but still not great. McCain is the "lesser of two evils".

Is the fact that Joe didn't even know that the tax rate didn't affect him in any way important to whether we feel he has an understanding of Obama's plan? I really don't give a shit what he did when he was 17 and if him being unlicensed is fine, then bully for him, but you also have to consider that his missing license is far more of an impediment to his dream of starting a business than Obama's tax plan.

I do remember President Clinton. He ran on the platform of "it's the economy, stupid" and went on a mission to fix it (he ended his term with a surplus). I also remember another president who ran under the slogan "No New Taxes. It seems politicians are politicians, but I don't see Obama claiming a spending freeze then in the next breath talking about government buying private mortgages. I ended up paying more because I insisted on a fixed rate mortgage. You mean I could have just taken the cheap one and let McCain buy it for me when the price went up?

McCain might have at one time been the lesser of two evils, but he did 2 things. First he did a lot of bipartisan work which was pretty good from what I can tell and then turned his back on his own work to pander to the Republican base. And second, he brought Sarah onto the ticket. He pacified the base, but lost a lot of other votes in the process (including EVERY woman I've spoken politics with since she was brought on the ticket whether I knew their politics going into the conversation or not--Palin is NOT the one that's going to get the women that would have voted for Hillary.)

[retailguy]

You keep claiming that he brought Sarah on the ticket to pander to the Hillary vote, but still today, there is no proof of that.

We've been through this before.

Yes, there were other choices, but really, she fits his profile. McCain decided (probably incorrectly) that he was running on the "maverick" ticket. She fits that bill.

Romney doesn't. Huckabee "might". Rudy DOESN'T. The Gov of Minnesota isn't as well known and no more experienced.

I recognize you don't think Sarah is "qualified". I maintain that shes MORE qualified than Obama, and running for a "lower" position.

As to Joe's understanding of the plan, I'd say he "got" the essence of it. Barack is going to take money from one class of people and give to another. Whether Joe is giving or receiving, it is not relevant to his understanding of the plan.

Finally, if you'd just admit that McCain has the wrong initial next to his name and you won't vote for him, you could abandon all these "silly" reasons you have to keep coming up with to justify your support for Obama. Just admit it. It'd be like buying a rainbow bumper sticker for your car, if you were gay. Do it, you'll feel LIBERATED! :wink:

[MJZiggy]

Colin Powell could endorse Obama??

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/10/why_the_powell_endorsement_cou.html?hpid=topnews?h pid=topnews

[hoosier]

The fact that Joe "supposedly" isn't affected by this tax increase is not relevant. The fact that his brain sees through the sham, IS relevant. The fact that it is relevant is why we know that Joe is "unlicensed" and hasn't paid his property taxes. If that isn't enough to get "society" talking about something else, we'll find out that Joe doesn't like cats or did something stupid when he was drunk and 16.

The sham that Joe's brain "sees through" is the progressive tax structure, which both liberals and conservatives have accepted in this country for a long time now. Joe's not a plumber but he is a wing nut on taxes.

[digitaldean]

Looking at either of these two candidates and I have to say "Oh, brother". Neither one is my idea of a leader. McCain appears as a democrat-lite. Obama's wealth redistribution scheme is scary to say the least. Suffice it to say, I am disenchanted with a campaign that is too long, too money-driven and is narrowed to just the donkeys and the elephants.

Taxation: The idea of "soaking the rich" does not work.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for being able to get a tax break. But to get it at the expense of someone who's earned their own money and having the gov't play Robin Hood is distasteful and flat out wrong.

We need to have fiscal RESTRAINT in Washington. All these new programs aren't going to help the deficit. And extra taxation, no matter to what class, during a recession is stupidity. Start with an across the board spending cuts, not freezes. If the public has to endure pay freezes/cuts then the gov't workers will have to endure the same.

You want to help re-work the infrastructure and help the economy? Fine. Start public works projects on renovating the bridges, sewer systems, etc. That will help long term. The money not spent from the usual departmental budgetary increases can assist in initially funding this.

Short term??...I know of no meaningful short-term solution that doesn't resemble a band-aid when a tourniquet is needed. This didn't happen overnight.

The binge lifestyle of living on credit instead of within one's means got us here. Having the gov't. forcing mortgages on banks to those who don't have the financial means to own a home got us here. Out of control deficit spending in both Democrat and Republican congresses (which both raided the SS gen. fund) got us here. A President who must have thrown away his veto stamp when he had the chance to veto a lot of the earmarks coming across his desk got us here. Having no coherent energy policy for the past few decades got us here. Forcing part of our corn/soybean crops to go towards idiotic ethanol production (thus jacking up the cost of food worldwide) got us here. Not significantly incentivizing alternative energy while pushing for more drilling in our own country got us here.

McCain's ideas of gov't buying mortgages (aka MORE welfare) is laughable. I moonlighted bartending so I can support my family when the reg. job fell short to pay the mortgage. There is NO stigma attached anymore to govt handouts, NONE. And we as a nation better look in the mirror to see who is to blame because we the people let it happen.

Worst of all, political parties that fight for their own glorification more than what's good for the country got us here.

I do find it laughable the bile that is spewn about Gov. Palin. She is probably the most common of all four of these lunkheads. But she is the one who is getting the most ridicule, scorn and mud slung at her. She's far from perfect, but she has done a lot at the local and state level and fought against her own party to clear out corruption. She is the TRUE outside the beltway person that is needed. Obama has spent half of his Senate career campaigning for POTUS. McCain has been in Washington for a long time. That doesn't equate to results. Same goes for the VP botox king, chia-pet Joe Biden.

I love the libs... a guy offers a legitimate question about Obama's tax plan. Obama gets nailed over his own words on wealth redistribution in the debate (and sees the poll numbers narrow a bit) and what do they do? The MSM and the Obama campaign does their best to smear the questioner. Say whatever you want on the guy, but this is just a frickin' smear campaign on someone who dares question the "Chosen One". Where were they when questions are still being raised about ACORN and other issues?

If Obama's elected, I'll do what I can at the grassroots to support his policies I see as right and fight those that are wrong. The same would go for McCain.

If we as a country got off our collective arses and did the same instead of just bitching about stuff, elected officials might actually feel accountable for their votes.

Look at Canada, they complained about low voter turn out...which was approx. 60%. If we had 60% voter turnout nationwide, our pollworkers would be inundated.

Woody, I salute your fellow Canucks. At least they put their money where their mouth is more than us.
:soap:

[texaspackerbacker]

Colin Powell could endorse Obama??

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/10/why_the_powell_endorsement_cou.html?hpid=topnews?h pid=topnews

He's gonna be on Meet the Depressed Sunday morning, and there's speculaton he'll endorse somebody. The guy on Fox was guessing Obama.

How about THAT for a sterling example of RACISM as discussed in the other thread? Never mind that one guy is like-minded on virtually every issue and the other is radically different on virtually every issue. Just go ahead and overlook everything else and endorse the black candidate.

Do you suppose maybe some people will see this situation for what it is, and have a little backlash against it? And leftists whine about the reasons why there is still racism. Sheesh!

But wait, Ol' Colin hasn't officially announced his decision yet.

[Joemailman]

What issues you talking about Tex? Surely you must know that Powell is pro-choice and pro-affirmative action.

[texaspackerbacker]

What issues you talking about Tex? Surely you must know that Powell is pro-choice and pro-affirmative action.

How about the whole realm of security/defense and foreign policy? How about the whole realm of economic policy?

You are right that Powell wasn't much of a social conservative, but that's the salad. On the meat and potatoes stuff, he's a long term mainstream Republican, if not outright conservative--but then McCain would hardly be called a prototype conservative either.

[mraynrand]

If Colin Powell endorses Obama, he'll seal up that .002% of blacks who were undecided for sure.

[Partial]

And so, the mis-information starts. Joe is unlicensed because he doesn't need a license, because he works with and for a licensed plumber. That is legal in Ohio.

The fact that Joe "supposedly" isn't affected by this tax increase is not relevant. The fact that his brain sees through the sham, IS relevant. The fact that it is relevant is why we know that Joe is "unlicensed" and hasn't paid his property taxes. If that isn't enough to get "society" talking about something else, we'll find out that Joe doesn't like cats or did something stupid when he was drunk and 16.

Oh, and Ziggy, do you remember a guy by the name of Bill Clinton. Yes, you must, but, way far back in 1992, he "tried as hard as he could" but he just had to raise the middle class taxes, with the single largest increase in history....

It remains to be seen, just "how hard" Barack will work to keep his word.

McCain? Barack lite. It'd be "better" but still not great. McCain is the "lesser of two evils".

Agreed. There is not a doubt in my mind that Barack's tax plan will have an increase on anyone earning over 50 grand, and a bigger handout to those who earn less.

[mraynrand]

The fact that Joe "supposedly" isn't affected by this tax increase is not relevant. The fact that his brain sees through the sham, IS relevant. The fact that it is relevant is why we know that Joe is "unlicensed" and hasn't paid his property taxes. If that isn't enough to get "society" talking about something else, we'll find out that Joe doesn't like cats or did something stupid when he was drunk and 16.

The sham that Joe's brain "sees through" is the progressive tax structure, which both liberals and conservatives have accepted in this country for a long time now. Joe's not a plumber but he is a wing nut on taxes.

Nope. Joe just knows what handouts and welfare are. We get progressive taxes. What we don't get is having to pay for a 'tax cut' that turns into another check to someone who doesn't pay any taxes. We've blown 170 billion on Katrina (most lost in the corruption of LA), 160 billion on the first stimulus and Pelosi wants 300 billion next January. That's almost the cost of the entire Iraq war and Obama wants money to go directly from the businesses (the 5% of small businesses that produce 50% of small business wealth - that is businesses between 100 and 500 employees) into someone's pocket. For what?

Again, JOE DOESN'T MATTER anywhere NEAR as much as what Obama revealed. Obama believes in redistribution of wealth, EVEN IF IT HURTS THE COUNTRY'S ECONOMY (HE SAID SO), because he thinks it is 'fair' (He can't define 'fair' any more than ANY OF THE LEFTIES here can). HE believes all this whereas the VAST MAJORITY of the country - all ages, all income levels, and all political stripes are COMPLETELY AND OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSED TO IT.

[MJZiggy]

If Colin Powell endorses Obama, he'll seal up that .002% of blacks who were undecided for sure.

Actually, Powell's popularity ranking is pretty much the only one that survived the Bush administration. If it were Powell on the ticket I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

And RG, it's not that Palin is inexperienced that I'd hesitate to vote for her; it's because I think she's an idiot. Subtle difference there.

[mraynrand]

And RG, it's not that Palin is inexperienced that I'd hesitate to vote for her; it's because I think she's an idiot. Subtle difference there.

Doesn't it bother you even a little bit that you're probably making this estimation based on totally biased coverage of the woman - coverage that would make Goebbels proud. Or that you just go along with Keith Olberman like a Pavlovian dog. You'd look like a moron too, if we just ran on an endless loop the worst shit you ever posted on here.

[texaspackerbacker]

I give you all this riddle.

How is Barak Obama EXACTLY like Howard, Aynrand, and a couple of other generally decent conservatives in this forum when it comes to taxes?

Answer: They ALL seem to think SOMEBODY has to pay for tax cuts.

It's a damned shame that Obama doesn't realize that he could easily have the low end of his redistribution scheme WITHOUT as Aynrand said, "we ..... have to pay for it".

TAX CUTS GENERATE GROWTH--GEOMETRICALLY ENHANCED INCOME--HENCE DEMAND--HENCE PRODUCTION/SALES--HENCE MORE INCOME--ON AND ON, AND ALL THAT ENHANCED INCOME GENERATES ENHANCED TAX REVENUE TO THE GOVERNMENT, DESPITE THE LOWER TAX RATES. Why is that so hard to understand?

Could it possibly be that Obama DOES understand, but that he is a true believer in his own class warfare rhetoric--that he hates anybody he perceives as rich that he wants to put a punitive tax on them?

Could it possibly be that Obama is so enamored with socialism and therefore, HATE of free enterprise capitalism, that he does NOT WANT to see the rising tide of tax cuts float all boats--that he merely is demagoguing his "tax cuts for everybody under $250,000 income" (which I still don't believe) to get elected, but is truly dedicated to pushing the country to such an economic situation that people will accept socialism--we see a little bit of that already with the bail out and now the proposed buying into banks?

And all my fellow conservatives can do is whine, "it ain't fair" that WE have to pay for tax cuts to lower income groups. And hell yes, I know it's more than just cuts. Obama proposes to have more of what Nixon once called a "negative income tax"--either increasing Earned Income Credit or whatever. So what! This just injects money into the economy, creating the same beautiful scenario described above with tax cuts that don't have to be paid for.

Yeah, I know. It just ain't fair. BFD.

[mraynrand]

How did that 170 billion dollar stimulus plan work tex?

[mraynrand]

'The income tax cut' for 33% of Obama's 95% isn't a cut. Like Social Security or Wlefare, it is a direct transfer of money from one pocket to another. Taken on face value, and assuming equality among the people giving and receiving those transfers, the deal is economic growth neutral. If it is a transfer from a producer to a non-producer, it will hurt the economy, plain and simple. Some people in our economy grow the economy, others do not. Why would you want an increase in direct transfer from the producers to the non-producers?

[texaspackerbacker]

How did that 170 billion dollar stimulus plan work tex?

You're referring to the $600 per person/$1,200 per couple plus $300 per kid, or whatever it was?

I'd say it's a little too soon to know. We STILL aren't in a recession by the real economic definition, though.

The overriding reason for the "crisis" we are in is that the leftist mainstream media is convincing everybody that we are in a "crisis"--probably with the strong motivation of getting Obama elected. There never was a real estate value "crisis" in 90% of the country--and the few places where values were down it was because they had previously gone up so extremely. Yet people were whipped into a psychosis of believing in the "housing crisis" which led to the mortgage "crisis"--real to the extent that it was based on declining real estate values, but a sham to the extent that the real estate "crisis" was severely overblown.

I was FOR the stimulus package you refer to--for precisely the reason outlined in the previous post--it IS stimulating the economy. That just takes a little time, and is over-shadowed by the panic being promoted by the media now in order to get Obama elected. And you guys sure aren't helping the situation any.

What is YOUR idea of a "stimulus package"? The thing William Shatner is standing there holding? :lol:

[texaspackerbacker]

'The income tax cut' for 33% of Obama's 95% isn't a cut. Like Social Security or Wlefare, it is a direct transfer of money from one pocket to another. Taken on face value, and assuming equality among the people giving and receiving those transfers, the deal is economic growth neutral. If it is a transfer from a producer to a non-producer, it will hurt the economy, plain and simple. Some people in our economy grow the economy, others do not. Why would you want an increase in direct transfer from the producers to the non-producers?

This is 100% true.

My point, though, is that you can do a tax cut/hand out/welfare/whatever you choose to call it like that, and NOT have it be a "direct transfer" because you DON'T HAVE TO STEAL IT FROM THE UPPER INCOMES. It doesn't have to be paid for; It will PAY FOR ITSELF!

Why is that so hard for Obama--and apparently you, Aynrand--to understand?

[mraynrand]

'The income tax cut' for 33% of Obama's 95% isn't a cut. Like Social Security or Wlefare, it is a direct transfer of money from one pocket to another. Taken on face value, and assuming equality among the people giving and receiving those transfers, the deal is economic growth neutral. If it is a transfer from a producer to a non-producer, it will hurt the economy, plain and simple. Some people in our economy grow the economy, others do not. Why would you want an increase in direct transfer from the producers to the non-producers?

This is 100% true.

My point, though, is that you can do a tax cut/hand out/welfare/whatever you choose to call it like that, and NOT have it be a "direct transfer" because you DON'T HAVE TO STEAL IT FROM THE UPPER INCOMES. It doesn't have to be paid for; It will PAY FOR ITSELF!

Why is that so hard for Obama--and apparently you, Aynrand--to understand?

Don't you get it? 33% don't pay ANY TAXES. They can't get a tax cut. But under Obama's plan they will get a 500 to 1000 dollar check. That is a direct transfer and is at best economic growth neutral.

[mraynrand]

What is YOUR idea of a "stimulus package"? The thing William Shatner is standing there holding? :lol:

How about a spending freeze (or at least a growth rate of programs 1% below inflation or some percentage below GDP growth along with a flat tax of 18%. Eliminate a few departments - Education, Agriculture (except the 'CDC' part), HUD, others. ( I can already hear the libs wailing).

[LL2]

And RG, it's not that Palin is inexperienced that I'd hesitate to vote for her; it's because I think she's an idiot. Subtle difference there.

Doesn't it bother you even a little bit that you're probably making this estimation based on totally biased coverage of the woman - coverage that would make Goebbels proud. Or that you just go along with Keith Olberman like a Pavlovian dog. You'd look like a moron too, if we just ran on an endless loop the worst shit you ever posted on here.

LOL! :lol:

[MJZiggy]

And RG, it's not that Palin is inexperienced that I'd hesitate to vote for her; it's because I think she's an idiot. Subtle difference there.

Doesn't it bother you even a little bit that you're probably making this estimation based on totally biased coverage of the woman - coverage that would make Goebbels proud. Or that you just go along with Keith Olberman like a Pavlovian dog. You'd look like a moron too, if we just ran on an endless loop the worst shit you ever posted on here.

LOL! :lol:

Actually, I don't watch Olberman or any of the other talking heads as I don't really feel the need to have them telling me what people said. I did watch Sarah Palin (and not just the clips) and for several reasons, I've come to that conclusion on my own but thanks for the lovely assumptions.

[Partial]

Well, she sure seemss smarter than that joker Biden who doesn't even know what a VP is supposed to do.

[hoosier]

The fact that Joe "supposedly" isn't affected by this tax increase is not relevant. The fact that his brain sees through the sham, IS relevant. The fact that it is relevant is why we know that Joe is "unlicensed" and hasn't paid his property taxes. If that isn't enough to get "society" talking about something else, we'll find out that Joe doesn't like cats or did something stupid when he was drunk and 16.

The sham that Joe's brain "sees through" is the progressive tax structure, which both liberals and conservatives have accepted in this country for a long time now. Joe's not a plumber but he is a wing nut on taxes.

Nope. Joe just knows what handouts and welfare are. We get progressive taxes. What we don't get is having to pay for a 'tax cut' that turns into another check to someone who doesn't pay any taxes. We've blown 170 billion on Katrina (most lost in the corruption of LA), 160 billion on the first stimulus and Pelosi wants 300 billion next January. That's almost the cost of the entire Iraq war and Obama wants money to go directly from the businesses (the 5% of small businesses that produce 50% of small business wealth - that is businesses between 100 and 500 employees) into someone's pocket. For what?

You might get it, but I promise you Joe doesn't. Read for yourself:


Mr. Wurzelbacher said he disagrees with the idea of people being taxed at a higher rate because they earn more.
"They’re going to take more of your money because you’ve been more successful," he said.
(....)
During that same conversation, Mr. Wurzelbacher advocated a flat tax to Mr. Obama under which everyone would pay the same rate of tax which was a feature of Mike Huckabee’s unsuccessful campaign for the Republican nomination this year.


EDIT: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081016/NEWS09/810160418

[hoosier]

Again, JOE DOESN'T MATTER anywhere NEAR as much as what Obama revealed. Obama believes in redistribution of wealth, EVEN IF IT HURTS THE COUNTRY'S ECONOMY (HE SAID SO), because he thinks it is 'fair' (He can't define 'fair' any more than ANY OF THE LEFTIES here can). HE believes all this whereas the VAST MAJORITY of the country - all ages, all income levels, and all political stripes are COMPLETELY AND OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSED TO IT.


Sure he can. He equates fairness with lessening what is currently an increasing inequality in income and wealth in this country, a trend that has been going on for several decades. Fairness means that wages at the top, in the middle and near the bottom increase at approximately the same rate, and that the vast majority of wealth isn't concentrated in the top 2% of households. We have statistics to measure inequality, and I will of course acknowledge that the idea of "fairness" does not have a statistical measure: it needn't be perfectly equal distrubution of wealth, but it's certainly not completely disproportionate accumulation and wage increases.

The Right goes on and on about "redistribution of wealth," but the fact is that Reagonomics itself gave birth to a huge redistribution of wealth. It's not as if wealth has always been naturally concentrated among the richest of the rich. So any "redistribution" that Obama is envisioning would only be a revision of prior redistributions.

[texaspackerbacker]

'The income tax cut' for 33% of Obama's 95% isn't a cut. Like Social Security or Wlefare, it is a direct transfer of money from one pocket to another. Taken on face value, and assuming equality among the people giving and receiving those transfers, the deal is economic growth neutral. If it is a transfer from a producer to a non-producer, it will hurt the economy, plain and simple. Some people in our economy grow the economy, others do not. Why would you want an increase in direct transfer from the producers to the non-producers?

This is 100% true.

My point, though, is that you can do a tax cut/hand out/welfare/whatever you choose to call it like that, and NOT have it be a "direct transfer" because you DON'T HAVE TO STEAL IT FROM THE UPPER INCOMES. It doesn't have to be paid for; It will PAY FOR ITSELF!

Why is that so hard for Obama--and apparently you, Aynrand--to understand?

Don't you get it? 33% don't pay ANY TAXES. They can't get a tax cut. But under Obama's plan they will get a 500 to 1000 dollar check. That is a direct transfer and is at best economic growth neutral.

And exactly WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THAT?

It's money injected into the economy that BENEFITS EVERYBODY. The only possible reason for opposing that concept is the old worn out "it ain't fair" line--they're getting something for nothing, and we're not.

As I stated previously, it does NOT HAVE TO BE A DIRECT TRANSFER. The only reason it is even close to that is because God damned Obama is either just as dense as you guys about the stimulatory effect of BOTH tax cuts and spending. If Obama's tax plan just did NOT include the rotten TAX INCREASE for higher income levels--which clearly is NOT necessary, then his program would not be bad.

I tend to think Obama isn't that stupid. Rather, he has a deep HATE for the people who succeed in the Free Enterprise Capitalist system, and wants to hit them with punitive taxes. That plus he favors socialism and HATES the whole American Free Enterprise Capitalist system, and does NOT want to promote tax cuts that stimulate it.

[hoosier]

Apparently Tex never received that conservative directive back in the 1970s to drop Keynes and switch to Friedman and Hayek. It's making for some interesting back and forth in the old Romper Room. :lol:

[texaspackerbacker]

Apparently Tex never received that conservative directive back in the 1970s to drop Keynes and switch to Friedman and Hayek. It's making for some interesting back and forth in the old Romper Room. :lol:

I think they first talked of Keynesian economics when Kennedy combined tax cutting with liberal spending programs. I wasn't aware that it was ever prmoted by Republicans.

Friedman's Supply Side--called Trickle Down by detractors--is similar to Keynesian, but either denies or only grudgingly accepts the benefits of the spending.

I suppose, Hoosier, the need of some to draw a distinction between the good people on our side and the scum on your side results in the need to blast injections of money for a bunch of dubious liberal programs. My only complaint is that they do it on bogus economic grounds.

I wonder where the progression of party politics would have gone if Kennedy had lived and served eight years. The Republicans would have had to differentiate themselves from him to survive, and if he had successfully employed tax cutting to raise revenue for spending--which, of course, was revenue generating on its own, I wonder what would have happened.

Johnson, Humphrey, Carter, and all the tax and spend liberals since have blown it all to hell, though, and Republicans pushing the dumb idea that you have to "pay for it"/balance the budget left us with the worst of both philosophies.

[bobblehead]

Arcilite, you provided a civil and rational argument in favor of progressive taxation. The only factual disagreement I have is where you stated that taxing the rich "equally", percentage-wise, is "regressive" because it "doesn't hurt them as much". That's definitely NOT the definition of regressive tax. Regressive would, of course, be having lower levels of income pay a HIGHER percentage.


I didn't say that. Having a percentage tax (I understood it as meaning a flat tax rate) hurts the less wealthy MUCH MORE than it does anyone else. The flat tax will raise income inequality and create a wider gap between the richer and the poor. Something that (if your on the rich side, is not bad at all) does not help advance society.

Actually yes it does...you just don't understand it so you say it doesn't and I have explained it too many times to bother again....when Walton makes billions because he renovated delivery systems the entire WORLD gets wealthier....but he gets stinking filthy rich. If he never does it that "gap" isn't widened...and the lower class never benefits.

[bobblehead]

I do remember President Clinton. He ran on the platform of "it's the economy, stupid" and went on a mission to fix it (he ended his term with a surplus).

Newt Gingrich and the republican contract with america congress balanced the budget...clinton fought them every step of the way.

Number 2, I have countered you on this one at least 3 other times.....Clinton NEVER had a surplus...NEVER. Not one year did the national debt go down...NOT ONE. When the budget as written had a surplus they spent it...thus it was balanced...NEVER a surplus.

Number 3, I don't have a calculator handy, but I have posted this too. As bad as bush has been, the debt right now is not much more than the debt when he took over plus the interest accrued on the debt while he was in office.

[bobblehead]

The fact that Joe "supposedly" isn't affected by this tax increase is not relevant. The fact that his brain sees through the sham, IS relevant. The fact that it is relevant is why we know that Joe is "unlicensed" and hasn't paid his property taxes. If that isn't enough to get "society" talking about something else, we'll find out that Joe doesn't like cats or did something stupid when he was drunk and 16.

The sham that Joe's brain "sees through" is the progressive tax structure, which both liberals and conservatives have accepted in this country for a long time now. Joe's not a plumber but he is a wing nut on taxes.

Nope. Joe just knows what handouts and welfare are. We get progressive taxes. What we don't get is having to pay for a 'tax cut' that turns into another check to someone who doesn't pay any taxes. We've blown 170 billion on Katrina (most lost in the corruption of LA), 160 billion on the first stimulus and Pelosi wants 300 billion next January. That's almost the cost of the entire Iraq war and Obama wants money to go directly from the businesses (the 5% of small businesses that produce 50% of small business wealth - that is businesses between 100 and 500 employees) into someone's pocket. For what?

You might get it, but I promise you Joe doesn't. Read for yourself:


Mr. Wurzelbacher said he disagrees with the idea of people being taxed at a higher rate because they earn more.
"They’re going to take more of your money because you’ve been more successful," he said.
(....)
During that same conversation, Mr. Wurzelbacher advocated a flat tax to Mr. Obama under which everyone would pay the same rate of tax which was a feature of Mike Huckabee’s unsuccessful campaign for the Republican nomination this year.


EDIT: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081016/NEWS09/810160418

Obviously you don't read either...huckabee was running on a national sales tax, not a flat tax.

[bobblehead]

Apparently Tex never received that conservative directive back in the 1970s to drop Keynes and switch to Friedman and Hayek. It's making for some interesting back and forth in the old Romper Room. :lol:

actually he simply refuses to accept that keynes talked about gov't spending in terms of infrastructure, not redistribution.

[MJZiggy]

Apparently Tex never received that conservative directive back in the 1970s to drop Keynes and switch to Friedman and Hayek. It's making for some interesting back and forth in the old Romper Room. :lol:

actually he simply refuses to accept that keynes talked about gov't spending in terms of infrastructure, not redistribution.

Infrastructure I can get into.

[hoosier]

The fact that Joe "supposedly" isn't affected by this tax increase is not relevant. The fact that his brain sees through the sham, IS relevant. The fact that it is relevant is why we know that Joe is "unlicensed" and hasn't paid his property taxes. If that isn't enough to get "society" talking about something else, we'll find out that Joe doesn't like cats or did something stupid when he was drunk and 16.

The sham that Joe's brain "sees through" is the progressive tax structure, which both liberals and conservatives have accepted in this country for a long time now. Joe's not a plumber but he is a wing nut on taxes.

Nope. Joe just knows what handouts and welfare are. We get progressive taxes. What we don't get is having to pay for a 'tax cut' that turns into another check to someone who doesn't pay any taxes. We've blown 170 billion on Katrina (most lost in the corruption of LA), 160 billion on the first stimulus and Pelosi wants 300 billion next January. That's almost the cost of the entire Iraq war and Obama wants money to go directly from the businesses (the 5% of small businesses that produce 50% of small business wealth - that is businesses between 100 and 500 employees) into someone's pocket. For what?

You might get it, but I promise you Joe doesn't. Read for yourself:


Mr. Wurzelbacher said he disagrees with the idea of people being taxed at a higher rate because they earn more.
"They’re going to take more of your money because you’ve been more successful," he said.
(....)
During that same conversation, Mr. Wurzelbacher advocated a flat tax to Mr. Obama under which everyone would pay the same rate of tax which was a feature of Mike Huckabee’s unsuccessful campaign for the Republican nomination this year.


EDIT: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081016/NEWS09/810160418

Obviously you don't read either...huckabee was running on a national sales tax, not a flat tax.

Don't be a twit. I'm quoting from an article. But if you want to nitpick, Huckelbee's "fair tax" is far more regressive than a flat tax.

[HowardRoark]

Tex is far and away the most articulate Lefty in the RomperRoom. He makes the case for redistribution better than anyone here. For that he should be congratulated.

[bobblehead]

Don't be a twit. I'm quoting from an article. But if you want to nitpick, Huckelbee's "fair tax" is far more regressive than a flat tax.

your right...you were and I missed that...so your source was flawed, not you. And his fair tax was only regressive without standard deductions which he had built in. It is also irrelelvant if its regressive or not, it is the best thing for the economy and our general standard of living which should be the goal, NOT fairness and punishment of the successful.

Again I have to say this...I'm into results, not theoretical fairness issues.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex is far and away the most articulate Lefty in the RomperRoom. He makes the case for redistribution better than anyone here. For that he should be congratulated.

Is that like saying the smallest negative number is the greatest? Seriously, a chunk of mud would be the sharpest knife in that drawer.

The case I make is for DISTRIBUTION, not redistribution. Redestribution would be the Robin Hood thing--what Obama is advocating--RAISING taxes on the upper income levels to "pay for" the cuts--which as McCain points out, is impossible for people who don't pay any taxes--other than simply cutting them a check. "Distribution"--which I indeed have no problem with--is exactly the same thing on the lower end--cutting taxes, and cutting a check to those not paying any taxes already, but, and listen very carefully now, Howard, DOING SO WITHOUT THE RAISING OF TAXES ON ANYBODY--PEOPLE MAKING OVER $250,000 OR WHATEVER. Did you get that, Howard? No REdeistribution, just distribution--injecting money and helping everybody.

And Bobblehead, Lord Keynes, being an economist, and not a sociologist or whatever, made NO DEFFERENTIATION of how, why, or what for the moeny was injected, just that it benefited the macro-economy and and micro-economic situations of pretty much everybody.

As you, yourself stated, fairness, etc. is irrelevant. What counts is doing what is most beneficial on the macro- level for the country as a hole. I used to be a country ass a hole--then I moved into town.

[Harlan Huckleby]

did the vote for the new president happen yet? Or is Bush still running the show?

[bobblehead]

Keynes argued that the solution to depression was to stimulate the economy ("inducement to invest") through some combination of two approaches :

a reduction in interest rates.
Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.[1]

Now where does it say to randomly inject money to the poor through borrowing or printing? It says basically give them jobs and improve infrastructure so a country is in better position to move forward. He also believed that in times of prosperity debt/rates should be moved back to normal.

[hoosier]

Don't be a twit. I'm quoting from an article. But if you want to nitpick, Huckelbee's "fair tax" is far more regressive than a flat tax.

your right...you were and I missed that...so your source was flawed, not you. And his fair tax was only regressive without standard deductions which he had built in. It is also irrelelvant if its regressive or not, it is the best thing for the economy and our general standard of living which should be the goal, NOT fairness and punishment of the successful.

Again I have to say this...I'm into results, not theoretical fairness issues.


You say your thinking is results driven but you're advocating a major revision of this country's tax philosophy based on a THEORY whose viability has been placed in doubt by actual experience--the abject failure of "trickle down" economics. But you and I are engaging in the 21st century equivalent to arguing how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. The political reality is that there is zero political support for revamping tax structure in the way that you want.

[bobblehead]

I'm arguing what is best, not what the political will is. If your arguing that all of washington is a bunch of pussies who do NOT have our best interest in mind...well, you and I have reached common ground.

What I really want is a top marginal rate of 19%, as studies have shown that over that is detrimental. Political will changes quickly when elections swing...other than a short time with clinton before the gingrich revolution top marginal rates have gone down consistently, so saying there is no political will to do what I want isn't quite true.

I fully expect another 2 year obama revolution of tax hikes before gingrich leads another revolution and we actually get a pro america agenda.

As far as the abject failure of trickle down economics...I think not. I am pretty sure even you would acknowledge that when you punish the producers they raise prices....and that is trickle on economics.

If you think that what I propose is an unproven theory I can't really debate you. I think it has been proven pretty conclusively that free market capitalism, with reward(read profit) for inovation has created about 90% of the true wealth in the history of this planet. About 5% has been created by socialism/communism. The other 5% has been created by slavery.

[hoosier]

Number 3, I don't have a calculator handy, but I have posted this too. As bad as bush has been, the debt right now is not much more than the debt when he took over plus the interest accrued on the debt while he was in office.

Your claim is simply wrong: the national debt under W has doubled. But we've coming to expect those sorts of inaccuracies from you.

[mraynrand]

'The income tax cut' for 33% of Obama's 95% isn't a cut. Like Social Security or Wlefare, it is a direct transfer of money from one pocket to another. Taken on face value, and assuming equality among the people giving and receiving those transfers, the deal is economic growth neutral. If it is a transfer from a producer to a non-producer, it will hurt the economy, plain and simple. Some people in our economy grow the economy, others do not. Why would you want an increase in direct transfer from the producers to the non-producers?

This is 100% true.

My point, though, is that you can do a tax cut/hand out/welfare/whatever you choose to call it like that, and NOT have it be a "direct transfer" because you DON'T HAVE TO STEAL IT FROM THE UPPER INCOMES. It doesn't have to be paid for; It will PAY FOR ITSELF!

Why is that so hard for Obama--and apparently you, Aynrand--to understand?

Don't you get it? 33% don't pay ANY TAXES. They can't get a tax cut. But under Obama's plan they will get a 500 to 1000 dollar check. That is a direct transfer and is at best economic growth neutral.

And exactly WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THAT?

It's money injected into the economy that BENEFITS EVERYBODY. The only possible reason for opposing that concept is the old worn out "it ain't fair" line--they're getting something for nothing, and we're not.

As I stated previously, it does NOT HAVE TO BE A DIRECT TRANSFER. The only reason it is even close to that is because God damned Obama is either just as dense as you guys about the stimulatory effect of BOTH tax cuts and spending. If Obama's tax plan just did NOT include the rotten TAX INCREASE for higher income levels--which clearly is NOT necessary, then his program would not be bad.

I tend to think Obama isn't that stupid. Rather, he has a deep HATE for the people who succeed in the Free Enterprise Capitalist system, and wants to hit them with punitive taxes. That plus he favors socialism and HATES the whole American Free Enterprise Capitalist system, and does NOT want to promote tax cuts that stimulate it.

He's going to let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone over 40 to 250K you fool.