Stick a fork in this moron.

[texaspackerbacker]

2. Obama's 95% getting a tax cut is pure fiction--an out and out LIE. McCain's tax cuts will be across the board, which means everybody gets them except those who pay no tax at all.

From Factcheck.org:
We spoke with Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates’ tax plans. When we asked him if Obama’s claim that he would “cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families” was true, Berman told FactCheck.org that it was “consistent with our estimates.” Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.
Under Obama's plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes.

Under McCain's plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.

You can argue merits, likelihood of passing and impact, but when you call Obama's claim a lie, it is you who are lying.

3. Putting more money in the hands of low income people--"those who will spend most or all of it" would indeed be a good thing, but first of all, it would NOT be the result of Obama's plans, and secondly, would NOT be MORE beneficial than increasing the money in the hands of upper income people--who would invest it. If you don't believe me, just ask Howard.

The independent analysis above shows more money would be put in the hands of lower income people. This will be more stimulating in the short term (see http://www.cbo.gov//ftpdocs/88xx/doc...mulustable.htm). Your comments about investment would hold water for long-term growth only if the high end tax cuts were targeted specifically to investments that produce growth within the U.S.

4. Historically, raising the minimum wage has been a nightmare for the very people the libs claim to want to help. Increasing the cost of employing individuals invariably causes employers to employ less individuals--a lot of working poor get laid off. Still, Dem/libs continue to push the same fail idea. More people end up ON welfare instead of getting off--assuming you include "unemployment compensation" as welfare. In addition, the economy is NOT stimulated by purely private sector transactions, but only by either government confiscating less tax money or injecting money. Forcing employers to pay higher wages does neither.

Perahps because actual results do not agree with your opinions. Analysis showed states with higher minimum wages than the federal standard had higher job growth. A more detailed analysis of Oregon's 1997 minimum wage hike showed real wage gains for those on the bottom, no net job loss, even in the retail sector, and an increase in the proportion of welfare recipients moving to employment. Even looking at a generally negative projection by South Dakota, concludes that the amount of money gained by the low income earners by the hike would be about 5 times greater than the amount lost due to lost jobs.

5. You're right that Obama's health care plan has a much better chance of getting through a Dem/lib controlled Congress. However, it also has a 100% chance of doing more harm to the country and everybody in it than McCain's. The best plan of all is NO PLAN AT ALL--leaving well enough alone.

What's the wait in emergency rooms where you are? How much money (ultimately coming out of our pockets) is wasted paying for high-priced ER visits for people with no insurance?

6. I don't recall commenting about sex ed. I'm pretty much neutral/don't care about that. Similarly, while I am tacitly against abortion, it ranks pretty far down the list of issues for me.

You mentioned abortion in your rant about democrats and their immoral agenda. I just point out that the democratic position is to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, and comprehensive sex ed is effective in doing so. I would agree that given what this country is facing, abortion should be a minor issue.

MadScientist a.k.a. LiberalWithBalls, you're a credit to your political persuasion--relatively formidable, as leftists go--maybe that's because most of them only "go" back under their rocks to run and hide.

On the most significant point above, Obama's claim of cutting taxes for 95% of the people, the HUGE reason why that simply is NOT true is because his figure begins at a point AFTER he fails to renew the Bush tax cuts--which in effect, is a LARGE tax increase. Yeah, maybe after taking THAT kind of a bite out of people's incomes, maybe 95% get a little bit back. The even MORE significant point is that even Obama admits that his program is a net TAX INCREASE--in other words, his sinister redistribution of wealth away from upper income people outweighs what he intends to give back on the lower end--even if you disregard his nonrenewal of the Bush Tax cuts. Thus, his program amounts to same ol' same ol'--liberal TAX AND SPEND crap.

On 3. above, I am actually a little bit receptive to your argument there. As I said, Howard and some other conservatives have gone around and around on this, and I've even been called "not conservative" and a "redistributionist". Yes, there is some credibility to your argument that the early burst of stimulus comes from consumers--who tend to be more on the lower end, although, as you admit, the longer term benefit comes from cutting the taxes of those who invest.

On 4. above, I tend to think you are citing one liberal-backed study and ignoring the preponderance of evidence. I'll just fall back on the other argument against raising minimum wage--that it tends to be inflationary, and thus, does relatively more harm to the people it's designed to help. And the best argument of all against raising the minimum wage, of course, is NOT an economic one at all. It goes completely against the grain of our free enterprise system for employers to be FORCED to pay more than market conditions dictate is necessary.

Regarding 5., my position--which seems to be roundly disagreed with by many conservatives AND liberals, is that any downside of leaving well enough alone--including your mention of uninsured visiting ERs--is insignificant compared to the Quantum Grab of our freedom and horrendous cost that goes with Obama's plan--or merely the Quantum Grab of freedom that comes from what some on the other side--especially in this forum--advocate, just legislating a requirement that people get insured--whether they like it or not. I say, we have the BEST HEALTH CARE IN THE WORLD right now--including almost a monopoly on medical, pharmacological, and technical advancements. It's stupid to screw that all up--as, of course, the Obama plan would.

And lastly, on 6., I really don't give a damn. I can see pro and con about sex ed--pragmatic "pro" of less pregnancies--probably, and moral "con" of schools assuming the role parents should have--sometimes against the parents' wishes. And while abortion is a lesser issue to you, a liberal, and even to me, a conservative, I do feel a certain need to maintain solidarity with other conservatives, to whom the abortion issue is a very big deal.

[MJZiggy]

I doubt your cause and effect argument with regard to minimum wage. In the few instances were business has changed positively following minimum wage increases, there are multiple other factors involved. Minimum wage hikes are typically a loser, especially for the lowest paid people - unskilled (usually minorities) and new high school or college grads. Some estimates indicate that the 500,000 to 1,000,000 of the unemployed are new grads who can't find work because of the recent minimum wage increases.

Thought experiment: If raising the minimum wage to $7/hour was a good thing and raising it to $10/hour would be a good thing, why not raise it to $20 or even $50? Then everyone would be rich. IF you think $50 is absurd, why do you think that? How should wage rates most effectively be determined for a broad range of millions of distinct jobs in different locales through 50 states?

You are correct in saying that there is not enough evidence to say that raising the minimum wage causes an increase in jobs, as correlation != causality. However the original claim by Tex was that raising the minimum wage would cause net job losses. The lack of correlation certainly argues against causality.

The 'thought experiment' is of course just silliness, not much different than if you had said 'If you liberals think it was a good idea to drop the voting age from 21 to 18, why aren't you saying its an even better idea to drop it down to 3? Huh? Huh? Why? Why?'

If you insist on having the obvious flaws in your argument pointed out, here goes. 1) The numbers actually being proposed are in line with the minimum wage levels at times in the past, whereas the numbers you threw out are way out of line with that. 2) The big jumps you throw out can only cause massive inflation (you can't sell a burger for .99 when the guy flipping it is making $50 an hour). The actual proposals are slow enough and small enough that not all of the costs of the increase in salary will be turned immediately into higher prices. Yes this will cause a little inflation, but not so much as to wipe out the gains for low end workers. You can argue that this is effectively a tax on business / a redistribution of wealth program, etc, but the fact is there already are such programs in the form of welfare, food stamps, low income tax credits, so reducing them by increasing wages is a more efficient solution. (Or do you like more government programs better )

Has there ever been a study on the "wage economics" (made up word?) in the Illegal Immigrant Community. I am being serious. I was reading this thread earlier today and was trying to think of a petri dish that might shed some light on the subject.

Real data, not anectodal. This is, after all, an unregulated model.

How would they gather the data? They can't even track these people much less force wage increases to that sector of the population.

[HowardRoark]

How would they gather the data? They can't even track these people much less force wage increases to that sector of the population.

As far as gathering the data, they could get Obama's donor list and interview the household help.

Forced is the point. Without any forcing at all, they could be earning more than minimum wage anyway. The invisible hand. There is always demand for good labor. That demand will "magically" push up wages.

I don't know the answers, but I think it would be interesting.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

How would they gather the data? They can't even track these people much less force wage increases to that sector of the population.

As far as gathering the data, they could get Obama's donor list and interview the household help.

THat wouldn't work, we wouldn't want to bust repubs for hiring illegals.

[MadScientist]

On the most significant point above, Obama's claim of cutting taxes for 95% of the people, the HUGE reason why that simply is NOT true is because his figure begins at a point AFTER he fails to renew the Bush tax cuts--which in effect, is a LARGE tax increase. Yeah, maybe after taking THAT kind of a bite out of people's incomes, maybe 95% get a little bit back. The even MORE significant point is that even Obama admits that his program is a net TAX INCREASE--in other words, his sinister redistribution of wealth away from upper income people outweighs what he intends to give back on the lower end--even if you disregard his nonrenewal of the Bush Tax cuts. Thus, his program amounts to same ol' same ol'--liberal TAX AND SPEND crap.

Just which current tax cuts for individuals earning under $200000 ($250000 for families) are set to expire that will not be renewed? Factcheck is usually good at pointing out inconsistencies like that, and they haven't. As for tax and spend, at least it's more responsible than the republican BORROW (from China, and Saudi Arabia) AND SPEND. Personally I'd prefer if Obama's plan had no or much reduced tax breaks for the $75K-$250K range, with that money set to work towards balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

On 4. above, I tend to think you are citing one liberal-backed study and ignoring the preponderance of evidence. I'll just fall back on the other argument against raising minimum wage--that it tends to be inflationary, and thus, does relatively more harm to the people it's designed to help. And the best argument of all against raising the minimum wage, of course, is NOT an economic one at all. It goes completely against the grain of our free enterprise system for employers to be FORCED to pay more than market conditions dictate is necessary.

I found 3 studies (New Jersey 1992, Oregon 1997, and a 10 state study 1999-2003). None of those showed negative impact on jobs. I specifically mention the Oregon one as it was the only one that included welfare analysis. More data would of course be welcome, but this is a Packerrats debate, not a social-economic thesis. As for the inflation, it simply does not create anywhere near as much inflation as the percent increase in the minimum wage. We've had several 10%+ increases in that did not produce a 10% spike in inflation.

I say, we have the BEST HEALTH CARE IN THE WORLD right now--including almost a monopoly on medical, pharmacological, and technical advancements. It's stupid to screw that all up--as, of course, the Obama plan would.

Just a couple of points to consider. There are definite costs associated with the uninsured (lost productivity, ER costs that could have been reduced by prevention, etc). With the spiraling costs expected to continue, the number and therefore costs of uninsured will shoot up as well. With Glaxo-Smith-Kline and AstraZeneca based in the UK, I don't see how you can claim we have anything related to a monopoly in the pharmacological industry. Finally of all the plans put forth by the various candidates to reduce the number of uninsured, Obama's is designed to leave more of the existing insurance structure in place.

[SkinBasket]

Personally I'd prefer if Obama's plan had no or much reduced tax breaks for the $75K-$250K range, with that money set to work towards balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

That's a wonderful fucking plan. Tax the most overtaxed income bracket some more. A two income family busts it's ass to make 80-100k and you want them to help balance the budget. There's important federal social welfare programs to fund after all.

[HowardRoark]

Just which current tax cuts for individuals earning under $200000 ($250000 for families) are set to expire that will not be renewed? Factcheck is usually good at pointing out inconsistencies like that, and they haven't. As for tax and spend, at least it's more responsible than the republican BORROW (from China, and Saudi Arabia) AND SPEND. Personally I'd prefer if Obama's plan had no or much reduced tax breaks for the $75K-$250K range, with that money set to work towards balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

What are your thoughts on the Laffer Curve?

[MadScientist]

Just which current tax cuts for individuals earning under $200000 ($250000 for families) are set to expire that will not be renewed? Factcheck is usually good at pointing out inconsistencies like that, and they haven't. As for tax and spend, at least it's more responsible than the republican BORROW (from China, and Saudi Arabia) AND SPEND. Personally I'd prefer if Obama's plan had no or much reduced tax breaks for the $75K-$250K range, with that money set to work towards balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

What are your thoughts on the Laffer Curve?

It's a joke

Seriously the real questions on the Laffer curve are where is the maximum, vs where the current tax rates are, and how does the curve change with change in income levels. Note, in 2003, the United States Department of the Treasury released a non-partisan economic study showing that the 1981 Kemp-Roth tax act produced a major loss in government revenues of almost 3% of GDP.

[MadScientist]

Personally I'd prefer if Obama's plan had no or much reduced tax breaks for the $75K-$250K range, with that money set to work towards balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

That's a wonderful fucking plan. Tax the most overtaxed income bracket some more. A two income family busts it's ass to make 80-100k and you want them to help balance the budget. There's important federal social welfare programs to fund after all.

Ah yes, the standard republican yakking point that a lesser tax cut is a tax increase Seriously, do you really think the deficit is a good thing? I don't approve of borrowing from China to pay for tax cuts. I don't approve of having a president needing to kiss Chinese ass so they won't cut our funding off.

You can go off on cutting spending, but it didn't happen when the republicans controlled everything (even if you remove the war spending, the deficit still shot up). So what makes you think anything will happen on that front if we give them another chance?

By the way Skin, what are you, lover of porn, doing hanging with the holy rollers?

[mraynrand]

Just which current tax cuts for individuals earning under $200000 ($250000 for families) are set to expire that will not be renewed? Factcheck is usually good at pointing out inconsistencies like that, and they haven't. As for tax and spend, at least it's more responsible than the republican BORROW (from China, and Saudi Arabia) AND SPEND. Personally I'd prefer if Obama's plan had no or much reduced tax breaks for the $75K-$250K range, with that money set to work towards balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

What are your thoughts on the Laffer Curve?

It's a joke

Seriously the real questions on the Laffer curve are where is the maximum, vs where the current tax rates are, and how does the curve change with change in income levels. Note, in 2003, the United States Department of the Treasury released a non-partisan economic study showing that the 1981 Kemp-Roth tax act produced a major loss in government revenues of almost 3% of GDP.

That's dishonest. Absolute tax receipts increased dramatically, because the economy grew because of the tax cuts. Same as under Coolidge and Kennedy and Dubya's tax cuts, and same as reducing cap gains taxes here as well as business taxes in the former Soviet Republics and Ireland, etc. The revenues may decrease relative to the GDP, but it's because the GDP grows so much. Bush's tax cuts increased tax receipts by about 200 billion/year. Problem was that government grew at an absurd rate because of automatic spending increases overwhelmingly in entitlement programs, new entitlement and governmental programs and also defense and war spending.

[SkinBasket]

Personally I'd prefer if Obama's plan had no or much reduced tax breaks for the $75K-$250K range, with that money set to work towards balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

That's a wonderful fucking plan. Tax the most overtaxed income bracket some more. A two income family busts it's ass to make 80-100k and you want them to help balance the budget. There's important federal social welfare programs to fund after all.

Ah yes, the standard republican yakking point that a lesser tax cut is a tax increase Seriously, do you really think the deficit is a good thing? I don't approve of borrowing from China to pay for tax cuts. I don't approve of having a president needing to kiss Chinese ass so they won't cut our funding off.

You can go off on cutting spending, but it didn't happen when the republicans controlled everything (even if you remove the war spending, the deficit still shot up). So what makes you think anything will happen on that front if we give them another chance?

By the way Skin, what are you, lover of porn, doing hanging with the holy rollers?

You're the one who wants "no tax break" and has been pointed out Obamarama is set on letting the current tax rate expire which *GASP* would equal a tax increase, no matter how cleverly you or his campaign want to phrase it.

I'll trust McCain to curb spending more than I will Obama, although as you point out, voting republican these days doesn't guarantee that. What I can guarantee is that McCain will take less money from me than Obama, and that's about as much as I can control by voting.

Just because I like watching people fuck doesn't mean I like a socialist cock in my ass. I like my money. I like spending my money. I don't want some motherfucker telling me he's going to take my money and give it out willy nilly to the poor simply because "I can afford it." Well, the poor can suck me off twice a week, because you know what, they've got the time, so why not?

[texaspackerbacker]

texaspackerbacker wrote:
On the most significant point above, Obama's claim of cutting taxes for 95% of the people, the HUGE reason why that simply is NOT true is because his figure begins at a point AFTER he fails to renew the Bush tax cuts--which in effect, is a LARGE tax increase. Yeah, maybe after taking THAT kind of a bite out of people's incomes, maybe 95% get a little bit back. The even MORE significant point is that even Obama admits that his program is a net TAX INCREASE--in other words, his sinister redistribution of wealth away from upper income people outweighs what he intends to give back on the lower end--even if you disregard his nonrenewal of the Bush Tax cuts. Thus, his program amounts to same ol' same ol'--liberal TAX AND SPEND crap.

MadScientist responded:
Just which current tax cuts for individuals earning under $200000 ($250000 for families) are set to expire that will not be renewed? Factcheck is usually good at pointing out inconsistencies like that, and they haven't. As for tax and spend, at least it's more responsible than the republican BORROW (from China, and Saudi Arabia) AND SPEND. Personally I'd prefer if Obama's plan had no or much reduced tax breaks for the $75K-$250K range, with that money set to work towards balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

Texaspackerbacker responds back:
In order to get the Bush tax cuts past the Democrats in Congress, Republicans had to agree to time limits of 2009/2010. The whole thing--which basically amounts to across the board cuts--will end within the next couple of years unless Congress--which is now heavily Democrat and likely to get worse that way--takes positive action to extend them.

Based on your words, MS, it sounds like you are even more extreme of a tax and spend leftist than Obama. Even though the NET EFFECT of Obama NOT renewing the Bush tax cuts and pushing his own plan would benefit nowhere near the 95% he claims, at least his "cuts" would be a minor positive for growth. They WOULD be if not for the fact that the amount subtracted due to his cuts is greatly outweighed by the amount added in his massive redistribution of wealth scheme--confiscating much more of the income of people in the higher income ranges. So even if you disregard his NOT extending the Bush tax cuts, Obama's program STILL is a net tax INCREASE instead of a cut.

[MadScientist]

In order to get the Bush tax cuts past the Democrats in Congress, Republicans had to agree to time limits of 2009/2010. The whole thing--which basically amounts to across the board cuts--will end within the next couple of years unless Congress--which is now heavily Democrat and likely to get worse that way--takes positive action to extend them.

Again, Obama's plan will continue the existing tax cuts and add more tax cuts for all but those over $250000 ($200k for individuals). That's it, period. I don't know where you (and skin and others) are getting different ideas, but they are not from Obama's proposals, or independent analysis.

Based on your words, MS, it sounds like you are even more extreme of a tax and spend leftist than Obama.

What I am is a deficit hawk. I want to see it attacked asap, but in a sustainable way. To me it's more important than tax cuts including cuts for me, but given the current economic situation I recognize the need to try something for stimulation. As for spending, I tend to favor things that give the US good value for the $$ spent (education, research, infrastructure, and yes even defense). I'm in favor of early childhood development and intervention programs that are shown to reduce kids turning to crime later. (Is that tax and spend liberalism or pro-growth and smaller government?)

[mraynrand]

In order to get the Bush tax cuts past the Democrats in Congress, Republicans had to agree to time limits of 2009/2010. The whole thing--which basically amounts to across the board cuts--will end within the next couple of years unless Congress--which is now heavily Democrat and likely to get worse that way--takes positive action to extend them.

Again, Obama's plan will continue the existing tax cuts and add more tax cuts for all but those over $250000 ($200k for individuals). That's it, period. I don't know where you (and skin and others) are getting different ideas, but they are not from Obama's proposals, or independent analysis.

Based on your words, MS, it sounds like you are even more extreme of a tax and spend leftist than Obama.

What I am is a deficit hawk. I want to see it attacked asap, but in a sustainable way. To me it's more important than tax cuts including cuts for me, but given the current economic situation I recognize the need to try something for stimulation. As for spending, I tend to favor things that give the US good value for the $$ spent (education, research, infrastructure, and yes even defense). I'm in favor of early childhood development and intervention programs that are shown to reduce kids turning to crime later. (Is that tax and spend liberalism or pro-growth and smaller government?)

You're absolutely right about Obama and the 250K. And your post seems pretty reasonable. I too favor a pragmatic approach when it comes to governmental programs - they ought to work to stay funded. Problem with the 250K limit to the taxes is that it will hurt a lot of businesses, and ultimately, raising taxes will reduce tax receipts and Obama will be forced into more cuts and or more taxes. And taxing businesses via his proposed increase in the cap gains tax will drive businesses away, even as he claims to want to keep them here (no tax breaks for businesses that leave the country).

[texaspackerbacker]

In order to get the Bush tax cuts past the Democrats in Congress, Republicans had to agree to time limits of 2009/2010. The whole thing--which basically amounts to across the board cuts--will end within the next couple of years unless Congress--which is now heavily Democrat and likely to get worse that way--takes positive action to extend them.

Again, Obama's plan will continue the existing tax cuts and add more tax cuts for all but those over $250000 ($200k for individuals). That's it, period. I don't know where you (and skin and others) are getting different ideas, but they are not from Obama's proposals, or independent analysis.

Based on your words, MS, it sounds like you are even more extreme of a tax and spend leftist than Obama.

What I am is a deficit hawk. I want to see it attacked asap, but in a sustainable way. To me it's more important than tax cuts including cuts for me, but given the current economic situation I recognize the need to try something for stimulation. As for spending, I tend to favor things that give the US good value for the $$ spent (education, research, infrastructure, and yes even defense). I'm in favor of early childhood development and intervention programs that are shown to reduce kids turning to crime later. (Is that tax and spend liberalism or pro-growth and smaller government?)

MadScientist, what evidence do you have that Obama intends to continue the Bush tax cuts as you say? This runs contrary to everything I've ever heard. Since you make so much use of these "truth squad" websites, some assurance from something with a reputation for objectivity would be nice.

As for your other point, you stated you would prefer that the government take the massive money grabbed by the government from his "redistribution" tax increase for people earning over $250,000, and NOT use it to decrease taxes for people of income less than $250 or 200,000. First of all, regardless of what you or other "deficit hawks" want, it's safe to say it ain't gonna happen. Far more likely, given the rotten and liely to get worse DEm/lib majority in Congress is the scenario of that money going for massive new social programs--as that, after all, is what Obama-esque liberals are all about.

If you DID get your way, however, the result could be even worse. Paying down the debt has a dampening/deflationary effect on the economy. That would definitely be the third best of the three scenarios: tax cut--best, spending--second best, pay down debt--third.