Well, it’s almost over, which means that, if God is merciful, I will never have to hear "Joe the Plumber" mentioned again in my lifetime.
"Joe" has now replaced "maverick" as the word I’ve heard way too many times. I suggest that Sen. Obama’s running mate change his first name. For the first time, I feel some small measure of gratitude that Sen. McCain did not choose my man ___ Lieberman for HIS ticket.
Yes, I exaggerate, but only a little.
So what did YOU think of the debate? I thought the same as I did about the first two — not likely to change many minds. And I find myself weary of them, and want no more. I’ll scream if I hear once more that Obama would fine you if you don’t have the right health plan, and McCain would tax your bennies. Face it, gents, neither of you would solve our health care problems. Only Dennis Kucinich had the right idea there.
McCain’s best moment? When he explained to Mr. Obama something that he has a lot of trouble getting into his head: that John McCain is not George W. Bush.
Obama’s best moment? When he listed the people he relies on for advice, as opposed to the abominable Bill Ayers.
But again: What did y’all think?
Related Posts
I agree with you, I don’t think it will change any made up minds, but I think it will give a more complete picture to those still deciding.
I wish that there was a “factcheck” group sitting there with buzzers that could buzz out a candidate that tries to repeat something that has been debunked on factcheck.org for more than a few days. (Maybe even super-imposed yellow letters saying “Liar” could appear over the candidate). I’m sure both sides have some favorites they wished got buzzed.
I thought it was about time that the Obama explained that Illinois law already required the doctors to be standing by in case there was a live delivery during an abortion (and so he wasn’t in anyway voting against that) and that he thinks the constitution has a right to privacy (while McCain or anyone who wants strict constructionists doesn’t).
I agree with you that plumbers are apparently infinitely more important than I ever imagined.
My annoyance was the line that the U.S. spends more money on education per capita than any other country. I’m not saying its anywhere near as efficient as it could be, but no duh! A major component of education is salaries which we tend to have pretty high over here for all occupations, and a second is that poor kids cost more to educate than rich ones (for obvious reasons) and we have more of those than a lot of the other high income countries.
You just can’t rattle Barack Obama.
When John McCain said “I’m not George Bush,” I wanted Barack Obama to come back with: AND I’M NOT JOHN MCCAIN!!!
But, ‘some of us’ are more reserved than others. This probably keeps ‘some of us’ out of many squabbles.
Actually, I take it back. After the debate, Mark Shields or somebody cited McCain’s strong answer on Supreme Court nominations, and now that I think about it, THAT was his best moment. He was able to say that yes, he disapproves of Roe, but he would not apply a litmus test, and he can prove it, pointing to the Democratic nominees he had voted for. By contrast, Obama gave lip service to “no litmus tests,” then fell back on Democratic boilerplate cliches about abortion. He even — and this was staggering, coming from a Harvard-trained attorney — seemed to place the supposed “right to privacy” on an equal footing with the First Amendment! Think about that: equating a mere “penumbra” with the very first set of rights that Madison and the rest went to the trouble to set out, clearly and unequivocally, in black and white.
At least, I think that’s what happened. We were in the middle of putting the twins to bed at about that moment. I look forward to looking at the transcript in the morning…
I felt that this was Obama’s clearest win yet. McCain consistently came off as condescending, which is not going to help him out with anyone other than the GOP base. And there seemed to be a pattern of McCain asking Obama a question, Obama answering, and then McCain responding as if he hadn’t even heard Obama’s answer. I do agree that McCain’s Supreme Court answer was better than Obama’s, but that’s about the only point I thought he won.
Surprisingly I did learn something new, which didn’t happen in any of the other debates; until now I would have agreed with McCain about the Colombia free-trade agreement, but this was the first time I heard the human rights justification for opposing it.
The internet has already chosen the most notable moment of the debate, however: “Zero.” Just watch McCain’s face. Though this clip doesn’t really address any issues or policy in any substantial way, this is going to hurt McCain.
I’m glad it’s over, and I’ll be gladder still when the election is over. (More glad?)
McCain started out strong–striking specific policy differences with Obama and appearing aggressive. Unfortunately, somewhere in the middle his tone became snide, and snide doesn’t play well with voters (especially this time). McCain confronted Obama with Ayers, and Obama addressed the issue as he did when Hillary brought it up. It just doesn’t seem to be a resonant issue with anyone except a segment of the conservative right. Most people don’t seem to think that Ayers has any influence on Obama’s policies. (I am not defending Ayers–he should have gone to prison for his actions, but I don’t question Obama’s character or judgment because of the association.)
The entire exchange about negative attacks was pointless. Nobody gained any points, and no ideas were produced from the exchange. I was surprised at McCain calling an ad criticizing his health plan “negative”. Negative (for me) means using words like dangerous and dishonorable.
Obama still seemed to be calm, cool and collected while McCain appeared strident and snide. Neither of them “won” the debate. It was just another debate full of talking points.
(I think those instant polls of undecided voters that have given all the wins to Obama are actually weighted with Obama supporters claiming to be undecided. CNN had a nearly 2-1 margin. How?)
The format was better–perhaps the proximity of the seating prompted them to talk to one another more, and Bob Schieffer was easily the strongest moderator of the four debates.
One of many FactChecks on the debate
Promising to appoint “strict constructionists” (as the term is currently used in practice) certainly is a litmus test – it is a code word for the justice not believing in right to privacy (and thus being against RvW). Taken to an extreme it seems that it should also indicate that they don’t believe in church and state as well, although that isn’t currently such a hot issue so it isn’t clear.
In and of itself, strict constructionist is a fairly weak litmus test though. It requires the follow-up question asking if the justice believes that “stare decisis” should hold even if they feel the ruling in question does not follow their strict constructionist viewpoint.
Bush (and the religious right) seem to clearly want a strict constructionist who would over-ride precedent — but can’t get one through without a filibuster breaking majority in the senate. I thought our current chief justice was an ok choice because he claimed to value precedent.
Obama’s best answer was on the last question about education.
His answer on abortion was pathetic.
McCain kept steering his responses towards attacking Obama’s tax plan, which in my mind is a good thing, because Obama’s plan will cripple the economy by stifling business. News flash: Businesses, big or small, pass tax hikes on to consumers in the form of higher prices (that is, if they don’t decide to just pick up and do business in another country). Yes, it’s true that tax cuts for businesses may not translate into consumer savings (though they probably would in the price wars of the retail sales market), but as McCain says, in this economy, why raise anyone’s taxes? Ultimately, all taxes end up getting paid by consumers. Obama’s tax plan is a vote-buying scheme.
Obama lured McCain into throwing attacks and then deflected the attacks with out throwing mud directly back at McCain. In that frame, one only guy looked dirty in the mud-fight and it was McCain. It just subtly re-enforced Obama’s message that McCain doesn’t want to talk about the economy. crisis, Mr Calm or Mr Temper?
The zinger that rattled McCain and sent him into a low simmer boil all evening was “the American people don’t care about our feelings”.
The split screen was no help to McCain as he look like the was going to either throw a punch or throw a thrombo at any moment while Obama looked calm and collected. Who do you want to have answer the call at 3am or who do you want to handle
McCain better ask Bush for a visit to the Oval Office as that’s the only way he’s going to see it again in his lifetime.
“His answer on abortion was pathetic.”
Which part? The part where he answered McCain’s blatant lie about that bill in Illinois (its been on factcheck for quite a while-it is a blatant lie) with the truth? The part where he finally made the point that no one is pro-abortion in the sense of thinking they are a good thing (to which McCain kept saying pro-abortion as a mantra)? The part where he said he’s all in favor of a late term ban if it has the exception to the mothers life (to which McCain admitted it was ok if the mother was crippled by not getting one, as long as that lame “health” excuse was shot down)? Or the part where he wanted to work on cutting down on the social causes of abortions?
“in this economy, why raise anyone’s taxes”
The first part of that answer is really disingenuous – the opponents are against raising taxes in any economy. Why raise them in general on some people? We have a huge federal deficit we should really start worrying about at some point (one where the dreaded ear-marks are such a small percentage of that they are virtually meaningless) and we have a tax system where those whose marginal dollars are valued the least (the rich) are often efectively taxed at a lower rate than those whose marginal dollars are valued the most (the poor). I’m not saying you need to care about either of those things, but they are certainly two really obvious reasons someone might.
I watched the debate until McCain zinged Obama for the Illinois senator’s eternal dance with words.
Finally, I thought, McCain has put his finger on the heart of the matter — like the first black president, William Jefferson Clinton, Obama feints and weaves, but says little more than nothing.
First McCain pointed out Obama’s eloquence, then he hit him square between the eyes with “but what he said was ‘we need to LOOK AT offshore drilling’ when we need to drill NOW.
At that point I turned the TV off, satisfied McCain, despite his stumbling through quite a few sentences, had ruled the night.
It was McCain’s best debate. Usually the professor, Obama looked like a student defending his paper to a man more experienced than he.
God speed McCain, lest Obama’s oft repeated lie — “I’ll cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans” — comes to pass. As 40 percent of Americans pay no income tax, this statement could only be obfuscatingly true if Obama plans to use the IRS to redistribute wealth.
If you think Wall Street’s been strange lately, consider how it might react to, and may already be reacting to, the Kenyan Hawaiian Indonesian candidate from the far left corner of the dark side of the moon.
Brad, you had it right the first time. Obama’s right to privacy comment was the key to the Roe decision. I too agree that their is a right to privacy implied in the constitution in line with first ammendment rights. I don’t find that boilerplate at all. Besides, what’s wrong with appointing judges based on their political philosophies? McCain will appoint judges that way as do all presidents. Why not just admit it up front. I did not find McCain’s comments particularly useful.
McCain did score with his “you should have run four years ago” comment. However, Obama counterpunched well. McCain’s economic policies ARE in line with Bush’s, so why not point that out? It’s fair game.
McCain had to come out strong and he did. But he came across as a bitter old man to me. He continued with the Ayers/Acorn nonsense way too long. He made his point, Obama answered back and that should have been the end of it. When he kept on with it he probably lost any momentum he had. Only a handful of the party faithful care about Ayers. And even fewer care about Acorn. Both are non-factors with the independents. By continuing on that line McCain came across as a partisan hack. It was quite pathetic.
Obama for his part was very passive. Sort of like a football team that’s ahead by 14 points with 7 minutes to play. That kind of passive play can get you in trouble. Hopefully the independent voters saw a steely calm presidential candidate and not someone too layed back and defensive. For me, I would have liked to have seen a bit more aggressiveness on the character issues.
First McCain pointed out Obama’s eloquence, then he hit him square between the eyes with “but what he said was ‘we need to LOOK AT offshore drilling’ when we need to drill NOW.
-p.m.
My wife and I just groaned at that stupid comment. We’re not going to drill NOW. It will take years. Dumbest comment of the 3 debates.
I don’t believe what either candidate said about appointment of Supreme Court judges. We all know they are going to appoint judges that please their constituency. They want to be re-elected in four years. That may be cynical, but I think it is true.
I still don’t understand–will someone explain to me why it is a matter of privacy to kill an unborn child, particularly in the third trimester, but it is not a matter of privacy for me to kill my mother? Why do we suddenly invoke “privacy” with an unborn child?
Apparently a person who is born has a basic human right to live. An unborn child has no basic human right to live, but then I don’t understand why not.
Listen, leadership is about character,judgement and commitment, not experience. Character: Here are the things I believe in. Judgement: I do not know all the answers, but can ask the right questions, and am able to choose the best solution. Commitment: The ability to get things done through hard work if necessary. Do you understand that experience (like Sincerity), is NOT a virtue. I suggest you all think about each candidate based on these 3 criteria. If you want entertainment, smoke and mirrors, and/or charisma, we are in great shape. Unfortunately we are choosing a leader for our country. The following quotation is of questionable provenance, but worth reading.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.” –Lord Alexander Tytler on the fall of the Athenian republic
Another question I have: If Obama (and Clinton before him) is willing to pass a law against partial-birth abortion that has an exception clause for the life of the mother, how come they don’t get one passed? Me thinks they are not really interested. Obama does not wish to displease Planned Parenthood, just as I doubt that McCain will displease the NRA.
I believe last night was the beginning of the end for Obama. He was having to back peddle all evening, and then gave clearly rehearsed excuses. McCain impressed everybody, including Joe the Plumber who said this morning that Obama’s tax plan is Socialistic.
Bud – we can start drilling now… “drilling” starts long before the drillbit hits the earth. If your wife was smarter than to stay married to you, she’d realize this. Her comment was the dumbest on this blog so far.
“America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.”
Oscar Wilde
No More Drips In The White House
Joe The Plumber 2008
Have you heard the latest… that Obama’s “Barak by Ronco” infomercial that he insists he needs to run on prime-time television is going to delay the start of the World Series game that night? That should impress people who haven’t yet had enough of the political ads.
McCain’s answer on abortion – “I’m a federalist and it should be a state issue” – was the biggest dodge of the evening. Why can’t he just come out and say he wants to make abortion illegal?
Does McCain seriously think this country would be better off having 50 different sets of laws related to abortion versus one? We’re already seeing a preview of what the chaos will look like on a smaller scale with all the state definitions of marriage that are taking place. It’ll keep a whole lot of lawyers busy but won’t ever change hearts and minds.
McCain the straight talker just can’t say the words that his party wants him to say:
“I will do everything in my power to overturn Roe V Wade”.
Obama won the debate easily but I still worry about his tax plan and his medical plans — both destined to take more money from my pocket to give to someone else. Obama completely deflated the William Ayers situation and left McCain sputtering. Ayers was the last hope of a desperate campaign bereft of ideas.
Last chance everybody – a vote for a third party candidate will send a message. A vote for either of McCain or Obama will not.
I did wish that the topic of illegal immigration had come up just once in any of the debates – although McCain made a cryptic reference to Obama lying about his position.
I’m guessing it didn’t because it’s one topic that McCain is to the left of Obama on. It would have been interesting if the moderator had asked them both this question:
“If a person enters or remains in the United States illegally, what rights does he have? and under what circumstances should that person be allowed to remain in the country?”
Bill C., this whole drill baby drill, rhetoric is an obnoxious attempt to blame the Democrats for something that is clearly the fault of the GOP. The Republicans have completely failed to develop alternative energy options, instead falling back on the drilling mantra. Since oil prices are unpredictable and for the moment falling there is zero incentive for oil companies to start the process of drilling in NEW areas even if the leases are available now. Besides, there just isn’t that much oil off limits. The oil companies simply cannot drill in areas with low potential while there is still oil to be had in the western gulf. McCain’s comment was a meaningless parsing of words.
Here’s what we’re facing. Obama seems to understand this, McCain doesn’t. Oil production in the U.S. has declined for 38 years now and will continue to decline regardless of what areas are off limits. We will continue to import 3/4 of our oil until we develop alternative transportation options. It’s that simple.
Bottom Line:
Barry is a TRIAL LAWYER. He has spent many years learning how to make a ball face lie believeable. Barry is an enigma. Barry will be the next 9 11 to this country. As some one said last night, “We need a leader, not a good talking lier”. And I agree.
I wouldn’t let Barry Hussan Obama be my lawn keeper. He may steal something out of the yard. I can’t believe the people in this country are so blind that this Muslim/Marxist may be the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’s PRESIDENT! LOOK OUT YOU JEWS AND WHITE FOLKS. A CLEANSING IS COMING! (per Mister Jesse Jackson)
Rasmussen is showing a tightening race. It’s now down to 50-46 Obama. Can McCain catch up in the short time left? This is not the time to be complacent. Folks who demand change from the failed ways of the last 8 years need to get out and vote. Otherwise we could be in for 4 more years of Bush tyranny.
P.M.,
Don’t you realize what you are doing to the already nervous elderly population with rhetoric like this:
“the Kenyan Hawaiian Indonesian candidate from the far left corner of the dark side of the moon”
The pharmaceutical companies will be the biggest winners here, as we will have to put them all on tranquilizers!
Doug, your question if we may be better off with 50 different sets of laws related to abortion is valid, but it misses the point. The point is, there is no constitutional basis for Roe v Wade. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, poster child for liberal judges, agrees that it was a poor decision. She said, “Roe v Wade…ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an inadequate justification for its action.” Whether 50 different laws would be better or worse is a moot point unless we change the Constitution first.
Newsflash, bud…Bush can’t run again. Please quit obsessing over the man. You’re beginning to make me think you have a crush on him or something.
If you’re going to keep on this line of continuing with another four years of Bush, please be intellectually honest and bring up the fact that Obama has voted with the Democrats in Congress 97% of the time. The same Congress which has a 9% approval rating. For as unimpressive as the actual numbers are, there are nearly three times as many people who approve of Bush as those who approve of the Democratically controlled Congress, of which your idol has voted with more than McCain has with Bush.
And another thing, is there ANYTHING that you don’t think is the fault of the GOP?
Bob Barr is looking better and better with each passing day, I just don’t know if I can pull the lever for him when it comes down to it, though.
“An unborn child has no basic human right to live, but then I don’t understand why not.”
I have no problem agreeing that the “potential human life” inside the mother should get some legal protections. The question for me is how much (relative to the mother) at each stage of development. A fertilized egg and a blastocyst are clearly not a person in the same sense as a born person. (To use your example, if your grandmother has no brain then is she legally dead – you can’t kill her any more. The “potential future human” doesn’t even have any synapses in the spinal cord (let alone a brain to be dead) until the fifth week.)
Tim – go ahead and do it. Or write in “None of the above”…
Exercise your right to vote. It’s not an obligation to vote for a Republican or Democrat.
That’s right Doug. They’ve whittled our options down to two: chocolate or vanilla.
The next step is we have an ‘option’ of one. Isn’t China trying the one option thing?
A couple or three points.
One, Doug — the Federalist answer is consistent with wanting to return to the state of law before Roe. What Roe did is take the decision away from the political branches and from the states, enshrining a "right" that is offensive to the intellect, without even getting into moral or ethical considerations.
Yes, turning the issue back over to statehouses would be ugly and messy. I would certainly dread having to deal with it as a substantial (rather than symbolic) issue on the state level. But it would be consistent with the way we deal with most life and death issues. People focus so much on national politics — because of television and the blogosphere — that they miss the fact that most such fundamental issues of law — murder, rape, armed robbery (except when it’s a federally insured bank) — are decided on the state level.
And Wally, you were right on Colombian Free Trade the first time. Obama’s answer on that was the same bankrupt answer Democrats have been giving all along. It’s a measure of their mindless subservience to organized labor, which will not let go of a point that no longer has moral force.
Nicholas Kristof has been a liberal conscience on this issue. In a column back in April, he wrote:
Obama’s answer blatantly ignores the truth in deference to party dogma.
McCain needed to, and the GOP still needs to, remind voters that the Democrats just pulled off the biggest bank robbery in history with their looting of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Obama will do like Clinton and fire every federal prosecutor, to make sure none of the Democrats are brought to justice.
What Roe did is take the decision away from the political branches and from the states, enshrining a “right” that is offensive to the intellect,
-Brad
Of all the things we disagree on this one is at the top of the list. Why is a “right to privacy” so “offensive” to you? Obama was correct in his debate answer, Roe was decided correctly. The Fourth Admendment says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons ….
Woman have the right to privacy regarding their bodies and state governments should not violate that right with anti-abortion laws. What is “offensive to the intellect” about this?
As a general rule I don’t want the government messing with me. I don’t want them telling me where I can go, who I can sleep with, what I can smoke, whether I can play video poker or whether I must utilize my body for 9 months in a way that goes against my will. I don’t want them listening in on my phone conversations. I don’t believe in the military draft except under extreme circumstances. And I damn sure don’t want them using my hard-earned money on some foolish foreign endeavor based on a pack of lies. The Constitution makes it clear that my rights are paramount. To suggest the government can violate those rights just because the president or a pack of fools elected to state office says so is both dangerous, wrong and highly reprehensible.
So a woman’s privacy has to cost someone their very life? Where are the rights of the child, who has no voice? Anyone can protect their privacy @ their local pharmacy through birth control. The pill dispenser won’t tell a soul.
Abortion has become a violent means of birth control. Babies are simply by-products of sex.
Adoption is always an option. You can bet on it.
Doesn’t the right to be “secure in their persons” extend to our smallest and most vulnerable?
P.S. You have to have a different mental picture than a round fuzzy little cell thing in order to want to extend to them what you would think was natural to offer them.
The reason that the “right to privacy” is offensive to the intellect is because Roe effectively created a new “right” in order to justify a change in the social fabric of America. As I’ve previously mentioned, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg believes it was a bad decision in relation to its Constitutional justifications. Many constitutional scholars agree that the “right to privacy” is tenuous at best in order to justify Roe. A stronger argument could be made in equal protection, that since a man can’t have a child a woman should have that right as well (twisted in my opinion, but I’m sure a lawyer could argue it effectively).
Let’s put it this way, if the Constitution gives me a right to privacy then I should have the right to keep my income private from the IRS. That means the “right to privacy” should trump the 16th ammendment as well.
The simple answer, and the one that would basically make every party happy, is to overturn Roe and let the states decide. At last count abortion would be kept legal in at least 43 states, which effectively still keeps it as is right now.
As an aside, Roe (Norma McCorvey) is pro-life now and speaks on a regular basis for the pro-life movement. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey) I think she came to Columbia a few years ago. And Doug, you may be interested to know that she’s a Ron Paul supporter too.
So much for “Joe The Plumber”. Turns out good old Joe:
a) Doesn’t have nor ever had a plumbers license
b) has tax liens against him
c) doesn’t have any real plan nor the money to buy the plumbing business he asked Obama
d) would get a tax break under Obama’s plan because it’s based on income, not revenue
e) voted Republican in the primary this year
f) said Obama tap danced around his question about buying the business “like Sammy Davis, Jr.”
Looks like Joe The Plumber is just one of Rush Limbaugh’s core audience.
Next!
To Bud @ 1:54:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons….[OK, Bud, finish it}…AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES… (Emphasis added)
Since it doesn’t happen all the time, I must confess that Brad’s legal argument is right on this issue. And he did it in an uncharacteristically non-condescending tone. Kudos to you Brad.
I guess it’s inevitable that our celebrity plumber who ought not be named is all the news today, but hopefully we’ll never hear about him again after tomorrow. I felt he added nothing to the debate, and digging up dirt on him is worse than pointless.
Rush Limbaugh has lost his edge completely in my view. He has sold out his integrity to the Republican Party platform. I can’t stand to visit his website anymore. It’s like he thinks he is a rain-maker or medicine man — and we’re all very easily bought, sold and/or amused.
……………
“overturn Roe and let the states decide”
Seems MORE THAN fair to me. You can bet California would keep it legal — the trip to the ‘doctor’ would just be less convenient. Like for the cheerleader at my junior high school in Colorado — the year she became a REAL celebrity.
So much for “Joe The Plumber”. Turns out good old Joe:
a) Doesn’t have nor ever had a plumbers license
* Since when do you have to have a plumbers license to purchase a plumbing company? A more effective case against him would be that his county (Lucas County) requires a license for plumbers and plumbing businesses. Neither plumber Joe or his employer are licensed in the county. I could see a valid concern about that, but it still doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a good question or concern.
b) has tax liens against him
* That still doesn’t negate the validity of his questions or concerns
c) doesn’t have any real plan nor the money to buy the plumbing business he asked Obama
* Where do you get this information? Everything I read said that is his plan, even if he may not have the money. Here’s the quote from an AP story: “He said the business consists of owner Al Newell and him. Wurzelbacher said he’s worked there for six years and that the two have talked about his taking it over at some point.” That sounds like a plan to buy it to me. He goes on to say in the article that he doesn’t have a “good” plan, but all it takes is an afternoon with someone who’s financially savvy to come up with a “good” plan
d) would get a tax break under Obama’s plan because it’s based on income, not revenue
* Not quite sure how you say that considering there are several unknowns that would have to be answered in order to determine if he’d get a tax break or not. What I do find disturbing, though, is Obama’s constant touting of the elimination of capital gains tax on small businesses. In this respect, businesses don’t pay capital gains tax. And a $3k tax credit for every full-time employee hired is going to do diddly-squat when the employer has to pay a full-time salary plus benefits (benefits account for 30.2% of compensation, so $3k amounts to nothing)
e) voted Republican in the primary this year
* And this means what? I voted in the Democratic primary back in 2004. Does that disqualify me from asking a question of a candidate?
f) said Obama tap danced around his question about buying the business “like Sammy Davis, Jr.”
* And? Your point is? The best criticism you could give him is that he’s a conservative who probably had decided to vote for McCain anyways, but that still doesn’t disqualify him from asking a very valid question of one of the candidates.
Sorry, Doug, but the best you’ve got here is that he doesn’t have a plumbers license. Even that doesn’t hold water when you take everything in context, though.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081016/ap_on_el_pr/joe_the_plumber
“My wife and I just groaned at that stupid comment. We’re not going to drill NOW. It will take years. Dumbest comment of the 3 debates.”
That just shows you, bud, that you believe whatever your Democrat masters say, but you don’t know a stinking thing.
Sounds like the McCain campaign wrote 63 songs all about Joe…
Obama said almost everything I ever hoped to hear a political leader say in a clear, and forceful presidential manner. As an independent voter I was almost seduced again, until McCain reminded me of the single, stubborn and enormously troublesome problem – Obama’s trustworthiness. He is lying about not increasing taxes on the middle class (I am a CPA), because he intends to allow Bush’s tax cuts to expire.
In 2005, Barack Obama did vote for CAFA, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, et al voted against it. Not so fast.
Voting for CAFA was not a betrayal of progressive principles. Progressives did not become federalists due to a sudden commitment to states’ rights, they just conceded the present conservative makeup of federal judges. Give them back Brennan, Marshall, Elbert Tuttle et al and they would “swoon for CAFA”. – Eaxactly what Obama intended all along.
Obama’s Machiavellian counsel might as well be lucifer himself. His election will be extremely dangerous for the country and the prospects of future generations.
I am not worried, however. There will be an upsetting surprise to end his evil ambitions.
Ha! Sarah wins the obscure reference crown.
“I don’t want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don’t want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don’t want to do that. ”
Ha! Do you think Hillary’s in the wings, singing, “That’ll never be me! That’ll never be me!”?
Tim,
So besides not being licensed plumber nor having the money or a “good” plan to buy the business, nor having a clue as to the difference between income and revenue, Joe The Plumber’s question was spot on. Thanks for clarifying it for me.
I wish I had a chance to ask John McCain about my plan to be the next Michael Jordan. Other than my age, weight, and torn achilles tendon, I have the same type of dreams Joe The Plumber has. Why is John McCain preventing me from being a basketball star?
When McCain was talking about Joe The Plumber last night, I was hoping Barack would say to him:
“John, you’ve got Joe The Plumber. Your running mate has Joe Sizpack. And I guess all I have is Joe Mamma!”
What is it about the Left that you have to destroy everybody you don’t like? The attacks on Palin were incredible, now you and your allies in the press set off after a poor Joe by publishing every bit of dirt you can find out about him: his address, his voter registration status (looks like there was a typo there, he is registered), his license or lack thereof, his tax lien, etc. You even get part of the story wrong.
Meanwhile, it’s hard to find much media coverage of the Mahoney guy who won Foley’s seat but now has problems of his own. I guess having a gal on the side is okay, even if you’re paying her with campaign funds, and even if that gal is upset about the other gal on the other side.
Yet members of the press will make things up and push them along just to make their foes look bad.
Wow, are we in for it.
“He is lying about not increasing taxes on the middle class (I am a CPA), because he intends to allow Bush’s tax cuts to expire.”
The tax cuts were temporary, they had a sunset. You are telling me you see no difference between failing to extend something and a standalone bill that would raise taxes? I take that as meaning that anyone who proposes a tax cut with a time limit is a misleading sack of excrement because they have no intention of actually letting it expire, and are just using it to cook the numbers and make it look like they won’t be running the nation into increasing-national-debt ruin.
“Meanwhile, it’s hard to find much media coverage of the Mahoney guy who won Foley’s seat but now has problems of his own. ”
Kidding, right? It’s been in the CNN or Google News headlines regularly for a few days now. Google news shows up 277 articles on “Mahoney sex”. Google blogs shows 7,897. Yeah, no coverage at all. How many stories is (yet another) congressional sex story worth as compared to a VP candidate who hasn’t had their past run through by the media yet, or a guy who is the centerpiece in a presidential debate the night before?
Ruh roh George. Looks like that “terrible” debate by McCain may have just worked. Time to get really nervous boys.
“GALLUP’s ‘traditional’ likely voter model shows Obama with a two-point advantage over McCain on Thursday, 49% to 47%, this is within poll’s margin of error… Developing…”
Mike,
The article you link to about getting the part of the story wrong doesn’t help Joe The Plumber’s case a bit. He admits he doesn’t make $250,000 a year (and I bet his boss wont like the IRS thinking HE makes $250K a year).
Why don’t we get back to Joe the year AFTER he buys the business and ask him to provide his tax returns. Then we’ll see what Big Bad Obama did to him.
He would have been better off saying “I’m Joe The Lottery Ticket Buyer” — when I hit the Powerball, why are you going to tax me more than Joe The Plumber?
And as Andrew Sullivan has written, Joe The Plumber has now had more press conferences than Sarah Palin.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111211/Gallup-Daily-Obama-49-McCain-43.aspx
explains the poll, when it was taken (before the third debate), and also explains the difference between the traditional model (that includes past voting behavior) and the expanded model (that is only based on intention). The former likely underestimates the new voter turnout, the latter likely overestimates.
Of course, the nationwide poll doesn’t mean squat… its those toss up states.
Joe the Plumber doesn’t need a license as long as the man he works for has one. He will need one if and when the day comes he takes over the business. Plumbers are usually trained on the job with some tech school background. In most states, in order to get a license, you must take a test. Generally the test is based on knowledge of codes, accounting (minimal), interpretation of plans, and last but not least, practical knowledge of plumbing.
Becoming a plumber does not require a degree unless design and engineering is an added service along with the actual field work.
Lighten up everyone. The guy asked a legitimate question and got a run around answer with a gaffe thrown in for good measure.
Most small companies are either LLC or SUB S corporations which literally means that income from the company is assigned to the person or persons owning the company and all income is counted toward the gross. It is not difficult to reach the $250,000 threshold for a decent plumber, even one working for himself.
So, where are the specifics in Obama’s plan for taxing those who earn more than the $250,000 threshold? What are the rules? How many employees can one add on annual revenues of $250,000 or more considering the high cost of insurance including workers comp, materials, transportation, accountants, indirect overhead, union dues, etc.?
Anyone else wanna join in and give some more detail about the cost of being in business for yourself? Yes, the small business person does provide the bulk of employment in America and is the one target who can least afford Obama’s tax plan. So, how many will hold off adding new employees, expanding business, cutting back on benefits or dropping health insurance to survive, and all of the other unpleasant consequences of increased taxation to help “spread the wealth around”? So, how in the long run will this actually help the 95% who will be on the receiving end of Obama’s redistribution largesse?
This is not a liberal plan, this is a leftist plan. I don’t mind paying my fair share of taxes but I darn sure resent having the people who pay my salary squeezed more than they already are. I was in the category Obama is targeting at one time and I can speak from direct experience, the “wealth” he keeps referring to just “ain’t” there. Look it up and see for yourself how many of these “small businesses” fail within the first five years. And he wants to add an even heavier burden?
Isn’t the tax calculated on the after expenses earnings?
And aren’t the taxes marginal? So the higher taxes are just on the dollars above $250k and not on that first $250k. So you don’t suddenly “lose money” as your business expands across the threshold, you just get to keep less of each additional dollar. (Granted those currently above the $250k would pay more.)
Of course, the last dollar means less for the higher income person than the lower income person (basic econ), so why shouldn’t they pay a _slightly_ higher percentage?
Mike Cakora,
The tax cut was temporary to garner enough bipartisan support for Senate passage (HINT: true conservatives wanted a permanent cut). The bill passed, 51 to 49, after the Senate agreed to salvage Bush’s controversial proposal to eliminate taxes on dividends – at least temporarily.
Republican RINOs did not want one. Republicans voting against it were Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, John McCain of Arizona and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine.
Some only see politics as a straight, binary proposition.
Clinton said he was going to cut taxes on the middle class. He lied.
Anyone who believes that Obama is not going to tax every productive American, they are mighty naive.
“Some only see politics as a straight, binary proposition.”
I guess I see politics as a gay hexadecimal proposition and worry about the greeting “Thank you for coming tonight”
I agree that true conservatives wanted a permanent rate cut, but there weren’t enough votes for that, so they had to settle tor the sunset. But to refuse to call letting the tax rate cuts expire anything other than a tax increase seems Orwellian to me.
I saw on the news today one Obama staff minion discussing the Joe tax situation using capital gains and dividend tax rates to point out the benefits. Those taxes don’t apply to small businesses organized as subchapter S corporations or LLCs. It’s a long story but the short version is that in return for the simplicity of filing, those two types of entities eliminate other benefits available to traditional corporations in terms of investment and expansion. The net result is that any funds for expansion are taxed at the individual rate. I repeat, any money saved for expansion is after-tax, so accumulating funds to expand the bidness is first taxed at the individual rate and what’s left is available for the expansion.
While many details of Obama’s plan are unclear, the fear, whether warranted or not, is that gross revenue or inventory or balance sheet items will be treated differently that what the current tax code allows, and that difference will be detrimental to the engine of the economy: small businesses organized as Subchapter S or LLC.
Back to Joe: don’t you sympathize with a guy who has a dream to own his own bidness? I’ve a neighbor and a brother-in-law who happen to be vehicle mechanics and who took a really big leap to go out on their own and start their own businesses. Both guys did not qualify for the SBA loans that the Obama minion trumpeted because they used their guts — in one case the guy had no real alternative since his employer had closed the doors — but both had a reputation for good work and attracted enough of their former customers to make a go of it. Both rent commercial spaces, one has several employees, and both don’t get paid when they’re sick or tired or whatever. That’s real guts, and both are confused about what’s in store for them.
The point on marginal tax rates is a good one, to which I add that McCain = 40%, Obama = 50%.
I welcome the input of any CPA or entrepreneur into this discussion. There’s a load of concern out there — fear — about what may soon happen.
Mike,
I have tried to put into words my personal experiences and consequences as a result of another group of politicians passing a new tax law in 1986 but it is very difficult to find the right words to express my deep feelings on the subject.
I can only relate this. We owe an obligation to the government to follow the laws of the land and conduct ourselves in an honorable manner, an honest manner, and pay our fair share according to the law. With that said, in turn, the government has no business in dictating to any of us who have been entrepreneurs and small business owners how much profit we can earn and that we should somehow be punished for our success by paying a heavier burden than those who don’t provide jobs through the auspices of small businesses.
If it is my good fortune to earn over $250,000 a year, why should I be forced to live by this comment from another poster… “Of course, the last dollar means less for the higher income person than the lower income person (basic econ), so why shouldn’t they pay a _slightly_ higher percentage?” Until now, I thought I lived in a democratic country, not a socialist one.
If we start by adding a slight increase in taxes for those earning over the $250,000 threshold, what next? Where does it end? This is pure socialism, no matter how you parse it or cover it with flowery speech. It is taking from one and giving it to another whether they earned it or not. It is “spreading the wealth around” – involuntarily by government decree.
I still want to know the actual accounting and tax provisions attached to this proposed increase and what constitutes the $250,000 benchmark for earnings.
To add one thing. The results of the 1986 tax law revision meant almost complete financial ruin for my family and me through no fault of ours. My company had to close costing many employees their jobs, health insurance, benefits,etc. We sold our home to pay our obligations instead of hiding behind a bankruptcy court decree. We walked away with nothing, no home, no business, no savings, nothing. So, I do know the possibilities are real when the government gets involved and has too much power over our free market system.
Failure!
The great unfairness of the federal and state income taxes is that everyone does not pay the same rate, and half those with incomes pay nothing. The lower 49% of tax return filers pay nothing. Most receive a tax credit to offset their Social Security and Medicare taxes.
Now Obama promises to give them each $10,000 every January.
As Ben Franklin predicted, we have hit the point of dissolution of the rule of law and of our republic, when politicians realize they can take wealth from a small productive minority, and purchase votes and support by enriching the least-productive majority.
Obama lied, when he listed a few normal people that supposedly gave him advice.
It is appalling that a newspaper editor won’t take the time to review Obama’s advisors, who include:
* Jeremiah Wright, professional racist
* Louis Farakan, professional racist
* Percy Sutton, attorney for Black Panthers
* Kahlid Monsour, former Black Panther, now a Muslim who spreads around money from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to influence voters against Israel. He paid Obama’s way through law school.
* Harold Ickes, architect of Hillary Care, a socialist, son of Stalinist parents who were active in the FDR administration.
* Laura Tyson, economic advisor to Bill Clinton, wrote her master’s thesis on the virtues of Romanian communist health care.
* Michael Klonsky, former Weatherman, member of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party.
* Tom Daschle and his wife, lobbyists for ethanol, and ADM
* Paul Begala, dirty tricks advisor to Bill Clinton
* 30 lobbyists from K-Street
Seems like to me if you tax folks earning less than 250k and, in a tax neutral manner, raise taxes for INCOME above that level that makes it easier for the lower income group to make it to the top. But it’s really obnoxious to see the super rich pay so little on money that is not earned at all. Just look at the golden parachutes handed out to the banking thugs.
Just saying, I do think the polls are tightening a bit. The Obama supporters absolutely do not need to get complacent, it ain’t over. The national polls tend to be leading indicators of the state polls that follow. I’m nervously optimistic. Given the racism in this country and the constant, despicable ads by McCain this could get close fast.
“If it is my good fortune to earn over $250,000 a year, why should I be forced to live by this comment from another poster… ”
Because it it’s the way the universe works. A $1,000 bonus to someone making minumum wage is huge, $1,000 bonus to an NFL player it is an insult. If the middle class person needs that last dollar to afford a beater to drive to work, and the rich person needs that last dollar to afford their third Lincoln navigator — who did it obviously mean more to? The concept of diminishing marginal utility is so uncomplicated that you can even find it in Jesus’ parable of the widow’s mite. The idea that someone is going to refuse to do extra work for an extra 100k because they only get to keep 61k of it instead of 65k is laughable. (Now, if they were talking about the huge tax rates well above 70% from the middle of the last century I might listen).
“If we start by adding a slight increase in taxes for those earning over the $250,000 threshold, what next? Where does it end?”
We’ve pretty much always had graduated tax rates in this country and they’ve been pretty under control for almost three decades now. If it is this huge of a fight to start one at $250,000, why on earth do you think it is even plausible that it would expand willy-nilly out of control.
“It is “spreading the wealth around” – involuntarily by government decree.”
It’s a freaking representative democracy, its no more involuntary then any other law they pass.
“My company had to close costing many employees their jobs, health insurance, benefits,etc.”
I’ll take that as a good argument to gradually phase in any changes over a long enough period of time that most businesses would adjust. I think that would be a perfectly reasonable thing to push for, and I hope some business groups point out the pitfalls of sudden changes in the tax code. I’m not a small business man, so please correct me if I’m wrong, don’t the salaries you pay employees get taken out of the revenues before the income is calculated? (If not, then why not push for that change?)
“I still want to know the actual accounting and tax provisions attached to this proposed increase and what constitutes the $250,000 benchmark for earnings.”
There are some details on Obama’s campaign page. CNN, the NYT, and several other papers have also had breakdowns of the generalities of how it works. http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/15/smallbusiness/small_biz_taxes_factcheck.smb/index.htm
“Until now, I thought I lived in a democratic country, not a socialist one.”
If this tax plan would make us socialist… then its too late and we became one sometime between 1862 when incomes under $10k were taxed at one rate and those above it at a higher rate, and 1917 when the top rate was 67%. (What?!? in the past our country actually paid for its wars?!?! but I digress.)
If the argument is that Obama’s plan is bad because it will destroy the economy (although we had an economy when hire rates were in place somehow) then I accept that as a reasonable concern. Jesus never commanded people in general to give all of their money away and he admitted the poor would always be with us… However a lot of the arguments are “how dare you take my money”. Jesus did say that if your over-riding desire was simply to make more money and keep it for yourself then you were worshipping mammon (not him) and were going to hell. But it’s not like the majority of people in SC (or the country for that matter) claim to be Christians and follow what he said. So I guess this last point is moot.
“Just saying, I do think the polls are tightening a bit.”
Historically, aren’t conservatives less likely to respond to polls in general – thus always slightly overstating the lefts position? (They value their privacy… just not their right to privacy? 🙂 )
Please expound on your tax plan, bud. You just keep digging a deeper hole. Many of those who make over $250k per year do so because they have put the hard work and sweat in to educate themselves and run a business properly. It is beyond me how any rational person finds it “fair” that we take from those who have educated themselves and worked hard and redestribute it to those who aren’t so willing to put the same effort in.
And to say, “it’s really obnoxious to see the super rich pay so little on money that is not earned at all” shows that you’re not aware of who really pays taxes. A Google search will turn up many links to data from the IRS, but chew on this data from the Office of Tax Analysis with the US Treasury:
*In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.
*The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
*Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
*Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush’s tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.
*The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.
*The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.
And that doesn’t even get into the fact that under Bush’s tax cuts, tax receipts have hit all-time highs. Problem is, Bush and the Republicans didn’t cut spending at the same time, but that’s another story.
And lastly, since you and those like you are so keen on stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, who the heck do you think employees the poor? It’s like biting the hand that feeds you. This class warfare that is being played out in our culture is becoming extremely tiring.
And Jesus never said it was the government’s responsibility to take care of the poor, either…
“who the heck do you think employees the poor?”
Certainly, the rich need the poor to buy stuff to keep their companies going, the poor need the rich to keep investing in the companies that employ them. The goal is to find the optimal taxation strategy to keep this going (preferably one that only taxes enough to provide the services that the people through their reprentatives have decided are necessary). If a 3% shift (miniscule in comparison to many historical tax changes) causes the system to collapse, then we’ve got a lot bigger concerns about the actual structure of the economic system as a whole than anyone is currently talking about.
“And Jesus never said it was the government’s responsibility to take care of the poor, either…”
I never said he did. He obviously thought that it was our collective responsibility to take care of them. If someone views a representative democracy as enacting the collective viewpoint of the voters… then it doesn’t strike me as completely unreasonable that a collection of voters who took their responsibility seriously might want to enact that through the government (as long as it didn’t unduly trample the freedoms of others). If your desired plan doesn’t involve the government doing it, but DOES involve it getting done somehow, well, ok then. That seems like a legitimate thing to debate.
I think there are generally plenty of legitimate reasons to not-like any particular tax proposal (increase or decrease) depending on how you think the economics will play out (keeping growth going, stopping people from starving in the streets, paying off the federal debt, etc…). My only point is that many of the arguments seem to be based more narrowly, and over-ridingly, on un-Christian greed.
“*The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.”
As it should based on arithmetic. The income of the top earners relative to inflation is increasing, the income of the bottom relative to inflation is decreasing.
“Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.”
The lower groups income is taxed at a lower marginal rate, and so each extra dollar has fewer taken from it than the rich groups does.
“”it’s really obnoxious to see the super rich pay so little on money that is not earned at all” shows that you’re not aware of who really pays taxes.”
(Correct me if I’m wrong, Bud). I think his point was the one that Warren Buffet makes. We tax teachers and firefighters at a higher marginal rate than we do people who earn income solely from investments.
I completely agree with you. I think the tax structure/welfare structure should be one that encourages the unworking to start working, instead of one that encourages them to stay unemployed. (Teach a man to fish vs. give a man a fish — the teaching still takes money though).
The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.
-Tim
This is one of Limbaugh’s biggest lies. The reason the super rich pay more than they used to is because they are becoming richer relative to the rest of us. They’re not earning as evidenced by the recent banking meltdown. Just look at the arrogance of the AIG folks with their expensive junkets at taxpayer expense. Some folks just don’t seem to get it. What has actually been going on of late is that the rich are stealing from the poor. I have zero sympathy for the bums.
just saying, go open your own business, bust your butt, pay the bills, keep the doors open, pay the insurance premiums, stay up at night worrying about the next project or order coming in, and everything else that goes into operating a business, then come back to me with your talk about Jesus, the widow and the mite, and all of your other platitudes.
As far as worshipping mammon or money, I never have nor will I. If so, then I would have taken the road of declaring bankruptcy instead of following God’s word and accepting full responsibility for the debts I had to others. Instead of doing the right thing and looking out for others for so many months while the economy was going down the tubes, maybe I should have just fired everyone at the first hint of difficulty instead of keeping people working, paying their insurance, etc.
Maybe when I refused to participate in the rape of South Carolinians when Hugo devastated a larger part of the state, I did the wrong thing. Maybe if I had joined in with some of my more sensitive Democrat business friends and padded estimates and costs, etc., I might still be in business.
As for taxing incomes on a graduated basis, that has always been the law and not the argument here. The argument is that Obama has “specifically” targeted one income group, expecting them to pay even more than before in order to “spread the wealth around”. Somehow thinking that they deserve to be punished for success. Here is an old agrument that doesn’t sit well with the uninformed. 5% pay the bulk of taxes in this country already. Think about that fact for a moment. 5% of the population pays a heavier burden than 95%.
If you want true equity and everyone pay their fair share which would be the right thing to do, then support a flat tax across the board and everyone, I repeat, everyone in this country earning a paycheck will be taxed at the same rate. If you earn $5,000 at 15%, you pay $750.00. If you earn $5 million, you pay $750,000. That is fair. Now, go tell your congressman and senator to present a new tax law reflecting that and see how far it gets.
And if I gather from your last comments that people like me who in your estimation worship money over God and will go to hell, guess what? “Judge not lest ye be judged”. I did not realize you are one who has somehow been given authority over my soul and have usurped God’s word in that it is His place to send me to hell or not.
Another of God’s commands to His people was to leave the edges of the field unharvested and not to glean the wheat too many times so there would be grain left for the poor, widows, and less fortunate. Using this command as the basis for conducting business, over the years I have found that conservative business owners are more likely to share their wealth.
If you want to invoke the word of God and the teachings of Jesus, I will suggest, not demand that you spend some time on your knees first in deep prayer. Make sure your heart is right before trying to correct mine.
@ just saying:
I know you didn’t. I was just adding. We’ve already discussed who I think is responsible for it (and it’s not the government). We don’t disagree on the premise, just on the execution (and I wouldn’t so much disagree on that if we could come up with an efficient structure as you and I have discussed previously)
@ bud:
Did you read the whole post? Let me say it again, these figures come from THE OFFICE OF TAX ANALYSIS with the US TREASURY. It’s amazing that when you’re confronted with some fact all you can come back with is that it’s a Limbaugh lie just because it doesn’t fit into your world view. As I said, any simple Google search will turn up a plethora of links regarding the breakdown of who pays taxes in our country. If you want to live in la-la land go right ahead, but the actual figures don’t support your position.
Whether the rich are paying more in taxes due to increased tax rates or due to increased income (if it’s earned honestly, good for them!), the FACT is that they pay the overwhelming majority of our tax burden already, yet you think that it’s only fair that they pay substantially more while the poorest among us get free money. And then you pull out AIG as an example to condemn all super rich. That’s class warfare, bud, and that’s a lefist philosophy.
I know just saying can defend himself (herself?), but I don’t think he meant that as a personal swipe at you, Bart. I read it as him just making an observation.
Tim, what you’re saying only applies to the federal income tax. Lower income people pay far higher percentages of their income for sales tax and especially FICA. Besides, I don’t accept the premise that the super rich really do EARN their income. CEOs of failed banks clearly haven’t, yet they have managed to get rich anyway.
And finally, the rich get the most benefits for their money. Military spending benefits the rich almost entirely. Does anyone really think the current ridiculous level of military spending is necessary to protect the safety of most Americans? Hardly. It mostly goes to keep fat-cat corporations wealthy. And now we have a 700 billion bailout for who? The wealthy bankers, that’s who. Most homeowners will receive scant benefit. But the ultra wealthy have their stock portfolios propped up yet again. Then there’s the auto industry. Even though they continue to ship jobs overseas they are granted billions in money to keep them afloat.
Tim,
Maybe not but it hits me the wrong way when the name of Jesus is brought into the mix and used in what I consider the wrong way. I thought the comments were directed at me because everything that preceeded the last paragraph had been and therefore, my response.
I will ask this question based on God’s word and the acceptance of Christ Jesus as your Savior.
Accepting Christ Jesus as your Savior and following God’s word is the prerequisite for going to heaven. Now, according to the Bible, you can build up treasures in Heaven by the good works you do here on earth. You cannot go to Heaven by good works alone.
Now, one Christian builds up a vast treasure in Heaven. For example, Sister Teresa should be one of those whose storehouse should be filled to overflowing with treasures. Another Christian enters Heaven and has little or no treasures built up. What then? Does he or she petition God demanding Sister Teresa share her treasures because it is an inequity?
My point if there is one is that it seems to me that most of this is based on envy and resentment. I don’t envy or lust after another man’s wealth because I didn’t earn it, he or she did. I don’t resent their wealth at all. If there is any resentment it is due to attitude, not ownership.
Greed is a condition of the heart and it knows no poltical boundaries. There are actually more Democrat and liberal super rich now than Republican or conservative. This is not supposition but reported fact. I don’t hear about any of the super rich voluntarily paying more taxes. We are constantly reminded that government cannot legislate morality. Greed is one of the seven deadly sins. Think about it.
Well, the whole mantra about government not legislating morality is a farce anyways. By their very nature laws legislate morality.
Obama’s hollow promise to “tax the rich” is mere pandering to his followers, who thrive on envy and hate. Most of them long ago gave up trying to do any better than a government check.
The economic reality is that Obama cannot raise taxes without decreasing economic activity and reducing net tax revenues.
All Obama can do is print more money and run bigger deficits, just like FDR, Carter, and the Democrats when they controlled Congress under Reagan, George Bush, and the last 2 years.
Smart money is fleeing stocks and will flee the USA if Obama Racist Socialism becomes a reality.
“As for taxing incomes on a graduated basis, that has always been the law and not the argument here.”
I view Obama’s goal as undoing the move towards degraduating that Bush started. If you aren’t arguing against graduated taxes, then that’s fine. Then we can discuss what level each of the graduations is at.
“I never have nor will I.”
I tried to be pretty clear in not criticizing you personally because I don’t know what your reasons are for your political views, and I don’t know how you live your life. I apologize for not making that clearer. It seems clear that you do conduct your business with higher, and I again apologize for offending you. I do, however, hope I offended all of the people who only grasp for the money and don’t have it in the right perspective. (We all have our flaws and I don’t think it hurts to have them shown once in a while).
If someone’s argument is that increasing the graduation by raising taxes on the rich more will harm economic growth for everyone – ok. I don’t think it will, but I think it is a reasonable concern.
If someone’s argument is that increasing the graduation by raising taxes on the rich to just hand money over to the unworking poor is bad – I think so too, money given to the poor without encouragement towards integrating into employment is (to a large extent) wasted.
If someone’s argument that a flat tax system that doesn’t even give a deduction for minimal costs to live is will do the most good for the most people over time – I think that its horribly badly thought out and will argue over it, but I think that’s at least a reason.
However, I am tired of politicians essentially saying “It’s YOUR money, you earned it, the government should stay the hell away because how dare they spend it to help people who didn’t earn it!!!” When that is the ONLY part of their message then it is pandering to greed. It is akin to those who take a “no tax-increase pledge” – they are putting a money policy ahead of _everything else_. Putting keeping ones own money ahead of everything else _is_ unChristian. If someone is offended at being asked to share of their surplus – it doesn’t show they are envious, but it doesn’t sound different from greed to me.
—
“, I repeat, everyone in this country earning a paycheck will be taxed at the same rate. If you earn $5,000 at 15%, you pay $750.00. If you earn $5 million, you pay $750,000. That is fair.”
If it has a deduction (or rebate) for the minimal cost of living like the FairTax proposal – then I don’t think it is fair (based on the value of marginal dollars), but I can agree to disagree.
If it does not have such a deduction (or rebate) for the minimal cost of living then I denounce it as greed. It would be systematizing taking what people need to live off of to avoid taking from the excess of others.
—
“go open your own business, bust your butt, ”
I trust that you aren’t saying that small business people are more worthy of respect than those who work for others? That’s what it almost sounded like.
—
“I will suggest, not demand that you spend some time on your knees first in deep prayer.”
Thank you for the suggestion. I try to do so, but think that everyone can use the encouragement.
“Obama’s hollow promise to “tax the rich” is mere pandering to his followers,”
I think any politician who wants to “tax the rich” with no further explanation, and is doing it to pander to the greed of the poor, is just as bad as the one wants to cut the tax rates of the rich to pander to that part of the population.
“Military spending benefits the rich almost entirely.”
Uhm, err… I’ve typed far too much already (as some others would certainly agree).. I’m trusting someone will dismantle this claim?
The economic reality is that Obama cannot raise taxes without decreasing economic activity and reducing net tax revenues.
All Obama can do is print more money and run bigger deficits, just like FDR, Carter, and the Democrats when they controlled Congress under Reagan, George Bush, and the last 2 years
Just got back home from business trip. But wanted to thank “just saying” for the reply. We can have our differences and get upset on occasion because everyone who comments on this blog contributes one way or another. There are not many blogs around that have the balance this one does. Brad has done a good job in providing the “raw meat” for everyone to chew on.
And, I will be on my knees in prayer tonight before going to bed. Every day I manage to shoot all ten toes off by my clumsy attempts at living. Then I ask for forgiveness. Funny thing though, every morning when I get up, I have all ten toes back on my feet, ready for another day of shooting them off again. Who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor?
OK, JS, here goes:
“Military spending benefits the rich almost entirely.”
World War II benefited only the rich? Only the rich benefited from quelling Hitler and the Japanese? Does that mean everyone in Europe and the United States is rich? Are all the Iraqis rich? Are the South Koreans rich? Are the South Vietnamese rich? Did the Civil War benefit mostly the rich? How about the Revolutionary War?
War is real, bud. It’s not some blasted game played merely to benefit the makers of military equipment. It was Viet Nam, not B.F. Nam. The biggest cost is always in lives, not dollars, and the biggest benefit is living free, not getting rich.
The slaves the Civil War freed weren’t rich, bud, and their descendents aren’t, either, for the most part, though the war gave them wealth they didn’t have.
The biggest wealth they got was freedom, though. And, again, they weren’t rich when they got it.
“I have all ten toes back on my feet, ready for another day of shooting them off again.”
I like that analogy. 🙂
Here’s hoping that whichever of the two gets elected that they actually do work for the good of the entire country, with a complete disregard for partisanship.
The following is something I received this morning in an email from a friend. I went to the internet to verify the source and prove its veracity. It is a true reproduction of the professor’s essay. Please read it and maybe it will provide some understanding about the discontent on the side of conservatives and capitalists when it addresses the issue of tax cuts and who benefits. Comments welcome.
——————————————–
Understanding Tax Cuts
by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D
Sometimes politicians, journalists and the liberal left exclaim; “It’s just a tax cut for the rich!” and it is just accepted to be fact.
But what does that really mean?
Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully. Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!”
“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D Professor of Economics University of Georgia
———————————————-
From the time the Bush tax cuts were enacted, the attacks have been unrelenting with the same accusations each time, “it was a tax cut for the rich”. Yes, the higher income earners benefited the most because they contribute the most. In every form of government, some will always contribute more than others. However, when those who contribute the most are continually attacked for receiving the benefits of their contributions will eventually curtail their involvement and their contributions will diminish in direct proportion to the harrassment and attacks especially if laws are passed that legalize unfair treatment.
Is treating those who pay the most in a fair manner with equal consideration wrong under our system of government?
The Bush tax cuts were across-the-board, for everyone.
The 2001 Bush tax cuts only rolled back 1/2 of the Clinton tax increases on the middle class, which had put the country into 2 severe slumps , a stock market crash worse than the current one, and finally, a recession in 2000.
It was Clinton who cut the capital gains taxes in half, to pay back Robert Rubin’s friends, who had bailed out his campaign with $20,000,000.
The bottom 49% of tax return filers paid no taxes, so they couldn’t get a tax cut. They received refunds and EITs which even wiped out all their FICA taxes for many of them.
Obama is proposing to hand out $10,000 every January to everyone who files a 1040, up to $100,000 income the year before, even if they had low incomes and paid no taxes. It is a pure wealfare program, a massive redistribution of wealth from those who produce wealth, to those who merely work a low-end job.