Joe the Plumber

[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?

[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?

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!

[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!

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...WS09/810160418

[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.

[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.

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.