Joe the Plumber

[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...WS09/810160418

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.

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.

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...WS09/810160418

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.